The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 (referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals into the United States to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases and pests of livestock. Subparts C, D, E, and F of the regulations govern the importation of horses, ruminants, swine, and dogs, respectively.

Horses, ruminants, swine, and dogs may be imported into the United States from the regions where screwworm is considered to exist only if they are inspected and, if necessary, treated for screwworm according to the conditions outlined in the regulations for each type of animal. The requirements for horses are set out in § 93.308(a)(3) and include not only pre-embarkation and post-arrival inspection and treatment requirements, but also quarantine in the United States for 7 days after arrival, and examination by a veterinarian before release from quarantine. The requirements for ruminants and swine are set out in §§ 93.405(a)(3) and 93.505(b) and are the same as for horses, other than the 7-day quarantine and final examination of the animal. The requirements for dogs are set out in § 93.600 and require that all dogs from affected regions be inspected and, if necessary, treated before importation.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) maintains a list of regions APHIS considers affected with screwworm on its website at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-and-animal-product-import-information/animal-health-status-of-regions/. APHIS will add a region to the list upon determining that screwworm exists in the region based on reports we receive of detections of the pest from veterinary officials of the exporting country, from the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), or from other sources the Administrator determines to be reliable.

Screwworm is reported on the WOAH website as having occurred in Aruba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, Iran, Timor-Leste, and Yemen in at least one biannual WOAH reporting period since at least 2005, and APHIS has not confirmed that screwworm was subsequently eradicated from any of these regions. Accordingly, on June 8, 2022, APHIS added Aruba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, Iran, Timor-Leste, and Yemen to the list of regions APHIS considers affected with screwworm. As a result, horses, ruminants, swine, and dogs from these regions are subject to APHIS import restrictions designed to mitigate risk of screwworm introduction into the United States.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

Background

On December 21, 2020, FSIS announced in the Federal Register the availability of the FSIS Guideline to Assist with the Donation of Eligible Meat and Poultry Products to Non-Profit Organizations (85 FR 83029). FSIS published the guideline to address food donation questions from meat and poultry establishments and non-profit organizations. The guideline explained inspection, labeling, shipping requirements, and exemptions. FSIS requested comments on the guideline.

After review and consideration of all comments, FSIS has made changes to and clarified certain aspects of the guideline. For example, FSIS revised the donation flowchart in the guideline to improve readability. The other revisions to the guideline are summarized below and are discussed in more detail in FSIS' responses to comments. The revised guideline is available at the FSIS guidance web page at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-guidelines. Although comments on this guideline will no longer be accepted through www.regulations.gov, FSIS will continue to update this document as necessary.

Meat and poultry establishments can be a critical component of reducing food loss and waste. FSIS encourages establishments to donate meat and poultry products to non-profit organizations, when possible, to reduce food loss and waste.

• FSIS updated the “Preface” section to specify which products are covered under the guideline;

• FSIS added information on donating egg products to help establishments and non-profit organizations better understand the relevant statutes, regulations, and FSIS policies;

• FSIS added a section to the guideline that addresses limited liability protection for donors including information related to the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act and the Food Donation Improvement Act;

• FSIS updated the text to reflect the updated and recommitted formal agreement between USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA);

• FSIS removed the “Donation Recipients” section to eliminate confusion;

• FSIS moved the “State-Inspected Products,” “Expired Products,” “Incorrect Standards of Identity,” and “Statement of Limited Use/Distribution” sections to under the “Products Eligible for Donation” heading to improve readability;

• FSIS ensured that all in-text citations are properly linked;

• FSIS revised the “Guidance for Organizations Receiving Donated Products” section of the guideline to alleviate confusion and improve readability;

• FSIS updated the donation flowchart to improve readability and include references to State inspected products;

• FSIS added a reference to FDA's final rule “Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food as an additional resource to assist stakeholders in keeping products safe during transport;”  1

• FSIS modified the “Misbranded and Economically Adulterated Products” section of the guideline to clarify labeling requirements for products with ingredients of public health concern; and

• FSIS revised the “Misbranded and Economically Adulterated Products” section of the guideline to remove language that could have been misinterpreted as FSIS creating new policy.

FSIS received five comments on the guideline from two meat producers, two State governments, and an academic institution. The following is a summary of the comments and FSIS' responses.

Comment: A State government recommended that FSIS add language to the guideline on proper cooking temperatures for raw meat and poultry products and cooking instructions for pre-packaged food. The commenter suggested that adding this information to the guideline would benefit donation recipients and reduce the risk of wasted resources.

Response: FSIS did not add information about proper cooking temperatures to the food donation guideline because they are not relevant to the guideline. Information on proper cooking temperatures can be found in other guidance documents, such as the Safe Minimum Cooking Temperatures charts found at https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts/safe-minimum-cooking-temperature.

Comment: A meat producer, an academic institution, and a State government stated that FSIS should allow products produced under the custom exemptions to be donated. The academic institution stated that there are instances when products produced at custom processing or slaughter facilities are eligible for donation at the State and local level. The academic institution suggested that revising the exemptions table in the guideline would help avoid confusion and potential jurisdictional concerns and would promote donation practices that are currently allowed and encouraged under many State and local laws. The State government further noted that there is meat and poultry waste generated at custom processing establishments, and that there is an opportunity to allow for donation. A separate meat producer noted that there are other instances when uninspected meat is permissible for donation ( i.e., hunter-harvested venison).

Response: Custom slaughtered and processed meat and poultry products that are prepared from amenable species under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) or Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) are prohibited from being donated (21 U.S.C. 623(a) and 21 U.S.C. 464(c)(1)(B)). Custom products are for the exclusive use of the owner of the livestock or poultry, members of the owner's household, nonpaying guests, or household employees. Additionally, specific exemptions under the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) can be found in 21 U.S.C. 1044.

Meat products amenable to the FMIA include those derived from carcasses and parts of cattle, sheep, swine, goat, and fish of the order Siluriformes. Poultry products amenable to the PPIA are derived from any domesticated bird (chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, ratites, or squabs, also termed young pigeons from 1 to about 30 days of age). Egg products amenable to the EPIA are from the shell eggs of the domesticated chicken, turkey, duck, goose, or guinea.

Nonamenable products ( e.g., deer, elk, and bison) that fall under the jurisdiction of other regulatory authorities ( i.e., FDA, State, or local governments) may have different policies related to donating products. FSIS recommends consulting with these regulatory authorities for further clarification on donating those products. FSIS did not revise the exemptions table in the guideline to incorporate nonamenable products. However, FSIS updated the “Preface” section of the guideline to specify which products are covered under the guideline and FSIS jurisdiction.

Comment: A State government and an academic institution suggested that FSIS include information in the guideline on the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act (42 U.S.C. 1791) and liability protections for food donors. The State government stated that liability protection is potential donors' primary concern.

Response: FSIS agrees and has added a section to the guideline that addresses limited liability protection for donors. However, it is important to reiterate that donations of apparently wholesome meat and poultry products by qualified direct donors must be made in compliance with FSIS regulations.

Comment: A State government noted that the guideline includes an exclusion from temporary label approval and relabeling, provided that certain bill of lading statements are provided. The commenter argued that this exclusion could be exploited by unscrupulous firms seeking to move products, originally diverted into the animal food chain, back to the human food chain. The commenter suggested that FSIS reconsider this exclusion.

Response: FSIS has no reason to believe that establishments are exploiting its streamlined donation process, which allows establishments to donate wholesome products with minor labeling issues without temporary label approval and relabeling, provided that certain information is included on bill of lading statements. The FSIS Office of Investigation, Enforcement and Audit conducts surveillance and investigation of regulated in-commerce meat, poultry, and egg products facilities to prevent situations like the commenter suggested.

Comment: A State government expressed concern that the guideline uses language that may conflict with State meat and poultry inspection (MPI) and local regulations. The State government noted that the term “Not for Sale” conflicts with their State's use of the same term, and that this may lead to confusion. The commenter also noted that their State does not permit inspection-exempt poultry processed by the producer (fewer than 1,000 birds) and labeled as “Not for Sale” to be sold at retail or donated to charity, and that donated product in their State must be inspected and passed.

Response: FSIS does not believe that it is necessary to revise the guideline to avoid potential conflicting terminology with State MPI regulations. The terminology used in the guideline has been used for many years, and potential conflicts with State MPI regulatory language have not been found to be a problem. Also, the table in the guideline referenced by the commenter explicitly states that it covers poultry products slaughtered and/or produced under an exemption from Federal Inspection. The guideline also states that donations must be made in compliance with applicable State and local laws.

Comment: A State government questioned whether the retail exemption still applies when the non-profit organization is exempted by State law from being required to hold a retail food establishment license. The commenter suggested that the guideline could mention that States may have specific licensing requirements or exemptions applicable to the non-profit organization.

Response: FSIS did not revise the guideline in response to the commenter's suggestion. The guideline already states that retailers are subject to the licensing requirements of State and local ( i.e., county, city) authorities while producing products under the retail exemption from FSIS inspection.

Comment: An academic institution and a State government recommended that FSIS clarify that the donation recipients mentioned in the guideline are not exclusive but illustrative. The academic institution suggested that producers and donation recipients will benefit from making this change to the guideline, because it will be clearer which donation recipients are eligible and will increase potential donations.

Response: FSIS has removed the “Donation Recipients” section from the guideline to alleviate any potential confusion.

Comment: Two State governments recommended that FSIS add sections to the guideline highlighting any updates or changes to previous FSIS policies, explaining case studies, and defining key terms.

Response: Consistent with other FSIS guidelines, this updated guideline contains a section summarizing changes from the previous version. FSIS does not believe that additional examples are needed in the guideline, so the Agency did not revise the guideline to include additional examples. If firms need further clarification on any information in the guideline in relation to their specific situation, FSIS recommends contacting the Office of Policy and Program Development through askFSIS, or by telephone at 1-800-233-3935. Lastly, all significant terminology in the guideline is defined throughout the document. Therefore, FSIS did not revise the guideline to add a specific section that defines key words.

Comment: A State government recommended moving content about donating State-inspected products and donating “expired” products to earlier in the guideline with the other donation standards.

Response: FSIS agrees and has moved the “State-Inspected Products” and “Expired Products” sections to under the “Products Eligible for Donation” section. FSIS believes that these changes will improve readability. FSIS also moved the “Incorrect Standards of Identity” and “Statement of Limited Use/Distribution” sections to under the “Products Eligible for Donation” to achieve the same objective.

Comment: An academic institution commented on the “Retail Exemption” section under the “Guidance for Organizations Receiving Donated Products.” The academic institution argued that the retail exemption for non-profit organizations is already addressed in the “relabeling” section.

Response: FSIS agrees with the comment and has revised the “Guidance for Organizations Receiving Donated Products” section of the guideline to alleviate confusion and improve readability.

Comment: A State government and an academic institution suggested that FSIS revise the donation flowchart in the guideline to improve readability and to indicate that certain State-inspected and passed products can also be eligible for donation.

Response: FSIS has updated the flowchart to improve readability and to address the donation of meat and poultry products produced under State MPI or Cooperative Interstate Shipment inspection.

Comment: A State government suggested that FSIS should consider expanding the “Shipping Donated Products” section of the guideline to include proper storage temperatures and times. The commenter argued that this will reduce the risk of products spoiling during transport.

Response: FSIS added a reference to FDA's Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food Final Rule  2 in the updated guideline. The rule addresses the commenter's concerns about proper storage temperatures and times during transport.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication online through the FSIS web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS can provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/forms/electronic-forms and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410;

(2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Background: RUS published a notice in the Federal Register on February 18, 1997, at 62 FR 7205 that the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, (108 Stat. 4954, Pub. L. 103-465, December 8, 1994), amended the “Buy American” provision, (7 U.S.C. 903 note) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq. ) (the “RE Act”). Under the amendment, the USTR is authorized to determine which countries are eligible to have their products receive the same treatment as manufactured and unmanufactured products produced in the United States. RUS publishes a new notice in the Federal Register to reflect any updates by the USTR. The last notice to update the list was published June 27, 2014, at 79 FR 36458.

Eligible Countries: Based on the updates to the list of eligible countries found at the following USTR Link: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/assets/procurement/Rural%20Utilities%20Service_Electric%20and%20Telecom_11.23%20Final.pdf, the following are the eligible countries for the RUS Telecommunications and Electric Program awardees:

For Telecommunications Program awardees, eligible countries are: Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.

For Electric Program awardees, eligible countries are: Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Chinese Taipei, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.

For Electric and Telecommunications Program awardees: Eligibility of contracts with certain countries may be limited by contract amount or other restrictions. Awardees should reach out to the appropriate program individual as shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice for additional information.

The USTR may at any time declare one or more additional countries to be “eligible countries” for either Electric or Telecommunications Program awardees. Each RUS awardee is responsible for assuring that its procurement complies with the requirements of the RE Act “Buy American” provision.

On April 26, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of certain high chrome cast iron grinding media (grinding media) from India, filed in proper form on behalf of Magotteaux Inc (the petitioner), a domestic producer of grinding media. 1 The Petition was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of grinding media from India. 2

Between April 30 and May 9, 2024, Commerce requested information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in supplemental questionnaires. 3 The petitioner filed an amendment to the proposed scope on May 8, 2024, and responded to Commerce's supplemental questionnaires between May 2 and 10, 2024. 4

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of grinding media from India, are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the grinding media industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition was accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigation. 5

Because the Petition was filed on April 26, 2024, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024.

The products covered by this investigation are grinding media from India. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the appendix to this notice.

On April 30, 2024, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. 6 On May 2 and 8, 2024, the petitioner provided clarifications and/or revised the scope. 7 The description of merchandise covered by this investigation, as described in the appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 8 Commerce will consider all scope comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information, 9 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that scope comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on June 5, 2024, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 10 Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, and should also be limited to public information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 17, 2024, which is the next business day after 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. 11

Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of this investigation be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent LTFV and CVD investigations.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 12 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.

Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of grinding media to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant cost of production (COP) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria.

Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) general product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe grinding media, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 5, 2024, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 13 Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 17, 2024, which is the next business day after 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. 14

All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the LTFV investigation.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 15 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 16

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. 17 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that grinding media, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 18

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2023. 19 The petitioner stated that there are no other known producers of grinding media in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry. 20 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support. 21

Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition. 22 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). 23 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 24 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. 25 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 26

The Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 27

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the significant volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, shipments, capacity utilization; and decline in financial indicators and employment variables. 28 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 29

The following is a description of the allegation of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate the LTFV investigation of imports of grinding media from India. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the India AD Initiation Checklist.

The petitioner based export price (EP) on the average unit value (AUV) derived from official U.S. import statistics for imports of grinding media from India during the POI. The petitioner made certain adjustments to U.S. price to calculate a net ex-factory U.S. price, where applicable. 30

On October 31, 2023, Commerce published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of the CVD investigations on aluminum extrusions China, Indonesia, Mexico, and Türkiye  1 and the LTFV investigations on aluminum extrusions from China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, Türkiye, the UAE, and Vietnam. 2 On November 27, 2023, the LTFV investigation regarding the Dominican Republic was terminated by the U.S. International Trade Commission, due to negligible imports. 3 On March 11, 2024, Commerce published in the Federal Register the preliminary determinations of the CVD investigations on aluminum extrusions from China, Indonesia, Mexico, and Türkiye. 4

Consistent with our practice, as established in the Preamble   5 to Commerce's regulations, in the CVD Initiation Notice and the AD Initiation Notice, Commerce set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the CVD Initiation Notice and the AD Initiation Notice. Commerce received scope comments on the official records of the CVD and LTFV investigations from numerous interested parties regarding a variety of products. Due to the complexity and volume of the scope comments received, Commerce addressed a number of comments with the preliminary determinations of the CVD investigations. 6 Consequently, in the preliminary determinations of each CVD investigation, Commerce instructed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of, and to collect cash deposits of, estimated countervailing duties on entries of aluminum extrusions subject to the scope of the CVD investigations. 7 Prior to, and after, the issuance of Preliminary Scope Memorandum I, Commerce received additional scope comments from interested parties.

On May 11, 2024, Commerce published in the Federal Register the affirmative preliminary determinations in the LTFV investigations of aluminum extrusions from China, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, Türkiye, the UAE, and Vietnam. 8 Commerce issued a memorandum, Preliminary Scope Memorandum II, 9 to continue addressing interested parties' scope comments. Multiple interested parties, including the petitioner, 10 submitted comments and proposed scope modifications or clarifications, resulting in the revision to the scope language incorporated in the CVD investigations. 11 As such, Commerce is hereby revising the scope of the CVD investigations on aluminum extrusions from China, Indonesia, Mexico, and Türkiye to coincide with the scope of the companion LTFV investigations ( see the appendix to this notice). The updated scope of the CVD investigations is provided in the appendix to this notice.

In each of the preliminary determinations of the LTFV investigations, Commerce noted that it would direct CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise based on the scope language in each notice, where appropriate. Within five days after the publication of this notice, Commerce will notify CBP of the change in the scope of the CVD investigations, as provided in the appendix to this notice, and will direct CBP to continue the suspension of liquidation, where appropriate.

In the Preliminary Scope Memorandum II, we invited interested parties to submit scope comments and information, including new factual information, regarding the scope language adopted in the Preliminary Scope Memorandum I and Preliminary Scope Memorandum II. Initial scope comments are due no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on June 5, 2024. 12 As noted in the Preliminary Scope Memorandum II, to issue a final scope determination for certain of these products, Commerce is asking parties to supplement prior submissions with production ( e.g., technical, installation, or user specifications, bills of materials), marketing ( e.g., brochures, website advertisements), sales ( e.g., invoices, contracts, packing list), or import documentation ( e.g., Customs 7501 entry forms, bills of lading), as applicable, to support product descriptions. 13 Rebuttal comments, without new factual information, may be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on June 12, 2024. 14 Scope comments and rebuttal comments must be submitted on the official records of all CVD and LTFV investigations.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 15 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due on all investigation records. Commerce intends to issue final scope analyses with the final determinations of the CVD and LTFV investigations. 16 Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 17

After the submission of scope comments, Commerce will set a schedule for the submission of case and rebuttal briefs limited to scope issues.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On May 29, 2014, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products (nickel-plated steel products) from Japan in the Federal Register . 1 On July 12, 2023, based on timely requests for review, we initiated an administrative review of the Order with respect to three companies: Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd. (Toyo Kohan), Nikken Las Industry Co., Ltd. (Nikken), and Taiyo Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Taiyo). 2

On September 12, 2023, Thomas Steel Strip Corporation (the petitioner) timely withdrew its review request for Nikken and Taiyo. 3 On January 11, 2024, Commerce extended the preliminary results of this review to no later than May 16, 2024. 4

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade/gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products subject to the Order are nickel-plated steel products from Japan. For a full description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the Initiation Notice. On September 12, 2023, the petitioner filed a timely withdrawal of its review request for Nikken and Taiyo. 6 Because no other party requested a review of these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce is rescinding this review with respect to Nikken and Taiyo.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We calculated export price in accordance with section 772 of the Act. We calculated NV in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2022, through April 30, 2023:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . 7 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 8 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this administrative review must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 9

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings, we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide, at the beginning of their briefs, a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 10 Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing. 11

All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, as well as hearing requests, should be filed via ACCESS. 12 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 13

Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 14

In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Toyo Kohan for which the company did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation ( i.e., 45.42 percent)  15 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 16

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be equal to the weighted average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 45.42 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 17 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On April 26, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of certain high chrome cast iron grinding media (grinding media) from India filed in proper form on behalf of Magotteaux Inc. (the petitioner), 1 a domestic producer of grinding media. The CVD petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of grinding media from India. 2

On April 30, 2024, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition. 3 On May 2, 2024, the petitioner filed responses to these requests for additional information, and on May 8, 2024, the petitioner filed an amendment to the proposed scope. 4

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of India (GOI) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of grinding media from India, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing grinding media in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is supported by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigation. 5

Because the Petition was filed on April 26, 2024, the period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. 6

The merchandise covered by this investigation are grinding media from India. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the appendix to this notice.

On April 30, 2024, Commerce requested information from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. 7 On May 2 and 8, 2024, the petitioner provided clarifications and/or revised the scope language. 8 The description of merchandise covered by this investigation, as described in the appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 9 Commerce will consider all scope comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information, all such factual information should be limited to public information. 10 To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that scope comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on June 5, 2024, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 17, 2024, 11 which is the next business day after 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

Commerce requests that any factual information that the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during that time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must also be filed on the record of the concurrent AD investigation.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 12 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.

Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOI of the receipt of the Petition and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petition. 13 The GOI did not request consultations.

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 14 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 15

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. 16 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that grinding media, as described in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 17

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition, and supplements thereto, with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2023. 18 The petitioner stated that there are no other known producers of grinding media in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry. 19 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support. 20

Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition. 21 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). 22 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 23 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. 24 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. 25

Because India is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 26

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, shipments, capacity utilization; and decline in financial indicators and employment variables. 27 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 28

Based upon the examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of grinding media from India benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOI. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 28 programs alleged by the petitioner. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate an investigation of each program, see the CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available in ACCESS.

The petitioner identified 11 companies in India as producers and/or exporters of grinding media. 29 Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in this investigation. In the event that Commerce determines that the number of companies is large, and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of grinding media from India during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheading listed in the “Scope of the Investigation” in the appendix.

On May 8, 2024, Commerce released CBP data on imports of grinding media from India under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of this investigation. 30 Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders.

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOI via ACCESS. Furthermore, to the extent practicable, Commerce will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

Typically, the ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that subject imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 31 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated. 32 Otherwise, this CVD investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  33 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 34 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. 35 For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, standalone submission; Commerce will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits only in limited cases where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning time limits for submission of factual information prior to submitting factual information in this investigation. 36

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 37 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 38 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d), e.g., by filing the required letters of appearance. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 39

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

Amendment to Remove the Trade Mission Optional Stops.

The International Trade Administration has determined that to allow for optimal execution of the trade mission, the optional stops to Jeddah and Dhahran, Saudi Arabia will be removed. Trade Mission participants will have an opportunity to meet with potential partners and distributors from Jeddah and Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, during the core mission stop in Riyad, Saudi Arabia, taking place December 8-9, 2024.

Gabriela Zelaya, Acting Director/Global Diversity Export Initiative—U.S. Commercial Service San Jose, CA; Gabriela.Zelaya@trade.gov; Tel: 408-335-9202.

Larry Tabash, Global Team Leader, Middle East & Africa Team, U.S. Commercial Service Austin, TX; Larry.Tabash@trade.gov; Tel: 512-936-0039.

Andrew Billard, Senior Commercial Officer—U.S. Embassy, Saudi Arabia, Andrew.Billard@trade.gov .

Carla Menéndez, Deputy Senior Commercial Officer—U.S. Embassy Saudi Arabia, Carla.Menendez@trade.gov .

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., notice is hereby given that the MEP Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on the date and time in the DATES section and will be open to the public. The primary purpose of this meeting is to provide the NIST Director with advice on the activities, plans and policies of the Program; assessment of the soundness of the plans and strategies of the Program; and assessment of current performance against the plans of the Program. The agenda may change to accommodate MEP Advisory Board business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST website at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Board's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately 20 minutes will be reserved for public comments and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be about three to five minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to participate are invited to submit written statements by email to mepab@nist.gov.

For participants attending via webinar and/or teleconference, please contact Ms. Bobb at (301) 975-5197 for detailed instructions on how to join the meeting.

Authority: 15 U.S.C 278k(m), as amended, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., notice is hereby given that the IoT Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on the date and time specified in the DATES section. This meeting will be open to the public. The IoT Advisory Board is authorized by section 9204(b)(5) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283) and advises the IoT Federal Working Group convened by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to section 9204(b)(1) of the Act on matters related to the Federal Working Group's activities. Details regarding the IoT Advisory Board's activities are available at https://www.nist.gov/itl/applied-cybersecurity/nist-cybersecurity-iot-program/internet-things-advisory-board.

The purpose of this meeting is to finalize the IoT Advisory Board's report for the IoT Federal Working Group. The recommendations documented in the report were accepted as final at the May 2024 meeting. This meeting's agenda will focus on finalizing the initial sections of the report, primarily the Executive Summary, Introduction, Future of IOT and Findings. Note that agenda items may change without notice. The final agendas will be posted on the IoT Advisory Board web page: https://www.nist.gov/itl/applied-cybersecurity/nist-cybersecurity-iot-program/internet-things-advisory-board .

Public Participation: Written comments on the drafts available at the IoT Advisory Board website above are invited and may be submitted in writing by mail or electronically by email to Barbara Cuthill at the contact information indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Due to the limited length of the meeting, there will not be time for members of the public to speak.

Admittance Instructions: Participants planning to attend via webinar must register via the instructions found on the IoT Advisory Board's web page at https://www.nist.gov/itl/applied-cybersecurity/nist-cybersecurity-iot-program/internet-things-advisory-board.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., notice is hereby given that the VCAT will meet on the dates and at the times given in the DATES section.

The meeting will be partially closed as set forth in the DATES section. The VCAT is composed of not fewer than nine members appointed by the NIST Director, eminent in such fields as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment, and international relations. The primary purpose of this meeting is for the VCAT to review and make recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. The agenda for the open portion of the meeting will include an update on major programs at NIST. It will also include discussions on NIST facilities, programmatic updates on safety, measurement science, climate, and energy technologies, and artificial intelligence. During a closed session on Wednesday, June 12, 2024, from 8:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. mountain time, the VCAT will discuss with senior NIST leadership the agency's current and future budgets and related programmatic prioritization approaches, the premature disclosure of which would significantly frustrate implementation of programmatic actions the agency might propose. This session is closed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). The agenda is subject to change if needed to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST website at http://www.nist.gov/director/vcat/agenda.cfm .

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's business are invited to request a place on the agenda by no later than 5 p.m. eastern time, Friday, May 31, 2024 by contacting Stephanie Shaw at stephanie.shaw@nist.gov . Approximately one-half hour will be reserved for public comments and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but, is likely to be about 3 minutes each. The exact time and date for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the NIST website at http://www.nist.gov/director/vcat/agenda.cfm . Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person or via webinar are invited to submit written statements to Stephanie Shaw at stephanie.shaw@nist.gov .

For participants desiring to attend via Zoom, please contact Ms. Shaw at stephanie.shaw@nist.gov by 5 p.m. eastern time, Friday, May 31, 2024, for detailed instructions on how to join the webinar. All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone number to Stephanie Shaw, stephanie.shaw@nist.gov by 5 p.m. eastern time, Friday, May 31, 2024. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Ms. Shaw at stephanie.shaw@nist.gov . For participants attending in person, please note that federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if such license or identification card is issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), or by a state that has an extension for REAL ID compliance. NIST currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. For detailed information please visit: http://nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/ .

This notice is relevant to the following species and evolutionarily significant units (ESU)/distinct population segments (DPS):

Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Central Valley spring-run;

Steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated California Central Valley; and

North American green sturgeon ( Acipenser medirostris ): Threatened, naturally produced Southern DPS.

CFRF submitted a complete application for an EFP to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. The EFP would continue to provide distribution, abundance, and biological data on juvenile lobsters and Jonah crabs from times and areas with low coverage from traditional surveys. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:

This project would continue an ongoing effort to collect data on juvenile lobster and Jonah crab abundance and distribution in areas and times of the year with low or no coverage by traditional surveys. To date, this project has collected data from over 226,000 lobsters and 131,000 Jonah crabs. The current EFP will expire on June 30, 2024.

The project would include 6 inshore vessels (Lobster Management Area 2) and 13 offshore vessels (Lobster Management Areas 1, 3, and 4) with the goal of adding 3 more offshore vessels to increase the geographic coverage (Lobster Management Area 5). Each vessel would fish with 3 modified, ventless traps designed to capture juvenile lobsters, totaling up to 66 modified traps. The modified traps would adhere to the standard coastwide survey gear for lobster and Jonah crab set by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and would be fished with standard Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan-compliant trawls. The traps would remain in the water for up to 12 months and be hauled every 7 days by the inshore vessels and every 10 days by the offshore vessels.

This study would take place during regular fishing activity of the participating vessels, but catch from modified traps would remain separate from that of standard gear. Operators would collect data on size, sex, presence of eggs, and shell hardness for lobsters and Jonah crabs and v-notch and shell disease for lobsters. In addition to onboard sampling, 3 inshore and 3 offshore vessels would retain up to 50 Jonah crabs per month each, for a total of up to 300 crabs per month, for a molting study. Operators would return all other specimens from modified gear to the ocean once sampling is complete.

The study is designed to inform management by addressing questions about changing reproduction and recruitment dynamics of lobster and to develop a foundation of knowledge for the data-deficient Jonah crab fishery. CFRF would share data with the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management every 6 months.

If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

All comments received are a part of the public record and may be posted for public viewing without change. All personal identifying information ( e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “anonymous” as the signature if you wish to remain anonymous).

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Secure and reliable telecommunications services are vital to ensuring the United States' economic competitiveness. As the telecommunications industry continues to deploy 5G wireless communications systems across the United States that both embody and enable standards-based, secure, reliable, and interoperable telecommunications ecosystems, the industry is beginning to plan for the development of the next generation of wireless communications: 6G. Advances in mobile networks have brought the internet to billions of people around the world who have, in turn, been able to access new opportunities and make new connections. 6G is expected to be the next step in continuing this positive momentum. Indeed, the U.S. and its like-minded partners have already established a core set of principles to shape the future of this critical technology to advance economic and national security interests. 1

In a report submitted to NTIA in December 2023, the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) describes the 6G Vision as “Dynamic connectivity across public and private digital and physical domains that enables intelligent communications while creating conditions for economic growth, enhanced national security, and societal well-being.”  2 In addition to International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) work on International Mobile Telecommunications-2030 (IMT-2030), there are a variety of organizations authoring 6G visions, including the U.S. NextG Alliance, 3 the India's Bharat 6G Alliance, 4 China's IMT-2030 Promotion Group, 5 and more. 6G is expected to be a general-purpose technology that provides pervasive and seamless connectivity across public and private digital and physical domains. 6G usage scenarios will likely not only build on those that began in 5G—including enhanced mobile broadband, massive machine-type communications, and ultra-reliable, low-latency communications—but will also expand ubiquitous connectivity, integrated sensing and communication, and artificial intelligence. New and emerging 6G-enabled applications hold promise to help achieve both societal and economic domestic goals including public safety, security, resilience, interoperability, economic competitiveness, and digital equity; international goals such as the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals and environmental goals; and enterprise goals like productivity, cost savings, quality, and time-to-market.

To ensure that 6G can meet these objectives, NTIA is requesting comments from interested parties to help inform the development of appropriate policy positions that will enable the U.S. to plan effectively for the 6G future and ensure that U.S. industry plays a leading role in the development of global standards and innovation ecosystems for 6G.

NTIA is most interested in comments on 6G topics related to proposed priorities, likely or potential use cases, and research and development from relevant stakeholders, including comments from stakeholders in the private sector (specifically, wireless broadband internet service providers, original equipment manufacturers and network vendors, developers and end-users of spectrum-based technologies and services, and contractors for federal missions), academia, civil society, the public sector, and others.

This request for comment is not focused on spectrum issues surrounding 6G. NTIA, in coordination with executive branch agencies and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is currently implementing the 2023 National Spectrum Strategy (NSS), which received over 130 comments and established the foundation for the 2024 NSS Implementation Plan. 6 NTIA encourages interested parties to engage with NTIA's Office of Spectrum Management on implementation of the NSS and other spectrum matters.

NTIA welcomes input on any matter that commenters believe is important to the U.S. Government's role in 6G development and use. Commenters are invited to comment on the full range of issues presented by this Request for Comments and are encouraged to address any or all of the following questions, or to provide additional information relevant to 6G technology. When responding to one or more of the questions below, please note in the text of your response the number of the question to which you are responding. As part of their response, commenters are welcome to provide specific actionable proposals, rationales, and relevant factual information.

NTIA seeks public comment on the following questions:

1. Which specific use cases will benefit from 6G technology initially, and how can the U.S. Government support these innovations?

2. What existing or future policies should the U.S. Government promote to support 6G development beyond spectrum use? What existing or future U.S. Government policies or initiatives could potentially stifle 6G development and deployment, or harm the ability of companies in the U.S. or its like-minded partners to compete in international markets?

3. What new challenges will arise from 6G regarding privacy, equity, and civil liberties? How can the U.S. Government ensure that the benefits of 6G technology extend to all segments of society?

4. How should the U.S. Government cooperate with like-minded countries on enabling 6G success globally? Are there existing international initiatives on 6G that the U.S. Government should consider? Are U.S. companies and those of likeminded countries positioned to be global leaders in 6G development, standardization, adoption, and deployment? What other countries or regions represent the strongest challenges to U.S. leadership in 6G? What can the U.S. Government do to enable success of U.S. companies in the global 6G market?

5. Previous commercial wireless generations have been deployed and operated predominantly by dedicated Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) whose primary business function is deployment and operation of such networks. More recent use cases for 5G-Advanced and 6G, however, envision other types of entities, such as industries and corporate or academic campuses, operating their own non-public networks (NPNs). What barriers need to be addressed to enable 6G adoption in these non-traditional verticals?

6. What is required to develop a domestic workforce capable of designing, manufacturing, deploying, and operating 6G networks and equipment? Will retraining or expansion of the currently wireless industry workforce be necessary for U.S. success in 6G?

7. What public-private partnerships would help enable U.S. leadership in global 6G development?

8. How are standards being set or developed to ensure that 6G supports interoperability between multiple telecommunications infrastructure suppliers?

9. With regard to the transition from 5G to 6G, what can be done now with 5G development to enable 6G success? How should these efforts be prioritized?

10. What supply chain issues currently present in 5G deployment and operation could potentially also impact 6G development and deployment? How will the 6G supply chain, for both hardware and software, differ from the 5G supply chain?

11. What infrastructure issues currently inhibit 5G deployment ( e.g. lack of access to high-speed backhaul infrastructure, standalone and non-standalone networks, etc.)? How can infrastructure be improved to enable a smooth and speedy deployment of 6G? Will siting needs for densified network infrastructure and Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) backhaul require additional antenna placements on buildings, particularly those owned by public housing agencies or similar? Will these placements require additional site leases?

12. What areas of foundational research will accelerate 6G and beyond technology development? What advances in related technologies, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, satellite communication, energy storage and transmission, semiconductor fabrication, etc., will be essential for successful development and deployment of 6G technologies and those for subsequent generations? Do developments in these or other emerging technologies such as quantum computing have the potential to substantially change the basic functionality or evolution of 6G or subsequent generations?

13. What are the necessary or priority investment areas for 6G testbeds and platforms to help support and accelerate 6G and beyond innovations in the United States?

14. In what areas should the U.S. Government focus its 6G and beyond research?

15. What standards development organizations, industry consortia, and stakeholder groups have taken up important topics related to 6G? Conversely, are there industries, stakeholders, or other groups whose perspectives are necessary to help ensure 6G research is interdisciplinary and extends across all necessary industry sectors?

16. What does the intellectual property landscape for 6G technology look like and how does this affect the U.S. Government strategy for 6G development? Do certain companies or regions own a disproportionate share of the Intellectual Property anticipated to be necessary for building 6G systems?

17. What roadmaps for development, standardization, and rollout currently exist? To what extent, if any, do these roadmaps conflict with each other, and how will these conflicts be reconciled?

18. What can the U.S. Government do to more effectively to engage on 6G standards development through IMT-2030?

19. When is 6G technology expected to begin lab and field trials and then become commercially available? What developments in 6G technology could accelerate replacement of obsolete technologies?

20. What new developments should be explored for:

a. 6G Radio Interface;

b. Core and Transport Networks;

c. User Equipment;

d. Open Source Software and Open Architectures

e. Intelligent Architecture/Machines;

f. Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning;

g. Security and Privacy;

h. Non-terrestrial Networks;

i. Power-efficient and Sustainable Networks;

j. Wireless Sensing;

k. Internet of Things (IoT); and

l. Spectrum Sharing, including Dynamic Spectrum Access?

m. Security and Resiliency; and

n. Semiconductor Technologies.

21. What can be done to enable seamless and ubiquitous access to heterogeneous 6G services across multiple radio access types ( e.g. terrestrial radio, non-terrestrial/satellite communication)?

22. How could 6G improve network resiliency during disaster and recovery operations, such as in hurricane response and other natural and man-made disasters that impact network performance?

23. How could 6G improve public safety and first responder mission critical communications?

24. Are there challenges in upgrading legacy public safety services (such as Enhanced 9-1-1, E9-1-1) to 5G that could affect 6G deployment? Will 6G exacerbate existing incompatibilities between commercial wireless networks and E9-1-1 service?

25. What impact will 6G have on the migration to Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) by public safety entities? Are there hurdles which will impair the ability of public safety entities to communicate with the general public and first responders as these stakeholders upgrade to 6G?

26. What steps should be taken to ensure that 6G technology can support critical services, e.g., mission critical services used by first responders and other National Security/Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) services, that require secure, highly available, and resilient networks?

27. Are there any concerns about the energy efficiency of 6G equipment and networks? If so, what steps could potentially be taken to reduce the energy consumption associated with this equipment?

28. Much of 6G's energy costs will come from operating the network. However, manufacturing, installing, and maintaining the physical infrastructure of 6G also has energy and environmental costs. Is the industry taking initiatives to reduce overall energy necessary to build and install 6G network infrastructure, and if so, what are they? Is it feasible to recycle or retrofit legacy network equipment or Open Radio Access Network (RAN) components to cut back on electronic waste? What cybersecurity challenges have been faced in the development and deployment of 5G technology? How can such challenges be prevented in the development and deployment of 6G technology?

29. CSMAC's 6G report, published in December 2023 and available at https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/6g_subcommittee_final_report.pdf, addressed a wide array of topics including overarching 6G vision, 6G use cases, 6G technical capabilities, and potential uses for 6G by the government. We seek comment on its findings and recommendations. Are there subjects addressed by the CSMAC report that should be further explored? Is the CSMAC report missing any additional topics of consideration regarding 6G? Have events occurred since publication of the report that affect industry's understanding of 6G? Do you have additional information or views that you believe would be helpful to NTIA?

Instructions for Commenters: NTIA invites comments on the full range of issues that may be presented in this Notice, including issues that are not specifically raised in the above questions. Commenters are encouraged to address any or all of the above questions. Comments that contain references to studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely available should include copies of the referenced materials with the submitted comments. Attachments to electronic comments should be machine-readable and should not be copy-protected. Responders should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, which will facilitate agency follow-up for clarifications as necessary, as well as a page number on each page of their submissions. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted on the NTIA website, http://www.ntia.gov/, without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

Cove Point requests a short-term blanket authorization to export LNG that has been previously imported into the United States from foreign sources for a two-year period. Cove Point states that it will export the LNG from the existing Cove Point LNG Terminal located in Calvert County, Maryland, to any country with the capacity to import LNG via ocean-going carrier and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy. This includes both countries with which the United States has entered into a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas (FTA countries) and all other countries (non-FTA countries). This Notice applies only to the portion of the Application requesting authority to export the LNG to non-FTA countries pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a). Cove Point states that its existing blanket re-export authorization, set forth in DOE/FECM Order No. 4849 (Docket No. 22-22-LNG), is scheduled to expire on July 7, 2024, and therefore Cove Point requests the term of the new authorization to commence on the earlier of July 8, 2024, or the date of issuance of the new authorization. Cove Point further states that it does not seek authorization to export domestically produced natural gas or LNG.

Cove Point requests this authorization on its own behalf and as agent for other parties that hold title to the LNG at the time of export. Additional details can be found in Cove Point's Application, posted on the DOE website at: https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/cove-point-lng-lp-fecm-docket-no-24-30-lng.

In reviewing Cove Point's Application, DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. DOE will consider domestic need for the natural gas, as well as any other issues determined to be appropriate, including whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Parties that may oppose this application should comment in their responses on these issues.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its NEPA responsibilities.

In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Interested parties will be provided 30 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.

Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to this proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590, including the service requirements.

Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods:

(1) Submitting the filing electronically at fergas@hq.doe.gov;

(2) Mailing the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section; or

(3) Hand delivering the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section.

For administrative efficiency, DOE prefers filings to be filed electronically. All filings must include a reference to “Docket No. 24-30-LNG” or “Cove Point LNG, LP Application” in the title line.

For electronic submissions: Please include all related documents and attachments ( e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner.

The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and comments will be available electronically on the DOE website at www.energy.gov/fecm/regulation.

A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this Notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this Notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. On July 6, 2023, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision establishing the second ten-year maintenance plan as a limited maintenance plan (LMP) for the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (Northern New Jersey) and Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE (Southern New Jersey) 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) maintenance areas. We announced availability of New Jersey's LMP on the EPA's transportation conformity website on August 16, 2023, ( https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-currently-under-epa#NY-NJ-CT-PM2.5 ) and requested comments by September 15, 2023. We received no comments in response to the adequacy review posting. EPA Region 2 sent a letter to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection on March 18, 2024, stating that the LMP for the Northern New Jersey and Southern New Jersey maintenance areas is adequate for transportation conformity purposes.

In October 2022, EPA issued Guidance on the Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas and PM 2.5 Maintenance Areas (EPA-420-B-22-044). The transportation conformity regulations require that “A limited maintenance plan would have to demonstrate that it would be unreasonable to expect that such an area would experience enough motor vehicle emissions growth for a [national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)] violation to occur.”  1 Additionally, the PM 2.5 LMP guidance suggests “an LMP may be particularly appropriate for a second maintenance plan, as the area will have demonstrated attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS for at least 8 years.”  2

To meet the transportation conformity regulation, i.e., demonstrate that it would be unreasonable to expect that the area would experience enough motor vehicle growth for a NAAQS violation to occur, an LMP submission for an area's second maintenance plan should again address the area's PM 2.5 air quality trends and its historical and projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Since the Northern New Jersey and Southern New Jersey areas have been attaining the PM 2.5 NAAQS for 10 years, with a low risk of future exceedances, we find the LMP adequate for transportation conformity purposes. Once an area has an approved or adequate LMP for a specific pollutant and NAAQS, the area no longer needs to satisfy the regional emissions analysis for CFR 93.118 and CFR 93.119. 3 A conformity determination that meets the requirements outlined in CFR 93.109(b)(Table 1), including the hot-spot requirements for projects in CO, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 areas, is still required for these maintenance areas with an approved or adequate LMP. 4

Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section 176(c). EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to State air quality implementation plans (SIPs) and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.

The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's Limited Maintenance Plan is adequate can be found in 40 CFR 93.109(e). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review and should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval action for the SIP. Even if we find a limited maintenance plan adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or 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:

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#tips.

EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.