In the April 3, 2023, Federal Register (88 FR 19605), AMS asked persons interested in providing official U.S. Grain Standards Act services in the Texas Central designation area to submit an application. There are two applicants for the Texas Central area: Plainview Grain Inspection and Weighing Service, Inc. (Plainview) and Grain Inspection Services of Texas, LLC (Texas Grain). Plainview is currently a designated official agency, and Texas Grain is a new business requesting designation. Plainview applied for designation to provide official services for part of the unassigned Texas Central area, specifically, Coke, Coleman, Ector, Glasscock, Midland, Runnels, Sterling, and Winkler counties. Texas Grain applied for the entire unassigned area.

The unassigned area in the state of Texas includes the counties of: Anderson, Angelina, Atascosa, Austin, Bandera, Bastrop, Bell, Bexar, Blanco, Bosque, Brazos, Brewster, Brown, Burleson, Burnet, Caldwell, Camp, Cherokee, Coke, Coleman, Collin, Comal, Comanche, Concho, Cooke, Coryell, Crane, Crockett, Culberson, Dallas, Delta, Denton, DeWitt, Eastland, Ector, Edwards, Ellis, El Paso, Erath, Falls, Fannin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone, Frio, Gillespie, Glasscock, Gonzales, Grayson, Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Hamilton, Hardin, Harrison, Hays, Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins, Houston, Hudspeth, Hunt, Irion, Jack, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Johnson, Karnes, Kaufman, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Lamar, Lampasas, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Liberty, Limestone, Llano, Loving, McCulloch, McLennan, Madison, Marion, Mason, Maverick, Medina, Menard, Midland, Milam, Mills, Montague, Montgomery, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Orange, Palo Pinto, Panola, Parker, Pecos, Polk, Presidio, Rans, Reagan, Real, Red River, Reeves, Robertson, Rockwall, Runnels, Risk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, San Saba, Schleicher, Shelby, Smith, Somervell, Stephens, Sterling, Sutton, Tarrant, Terrell, Titus, Tom Green, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, Upton, Uvalde, Val Verde, Van Zandt, Walker, Ward, Washington, Williamson, Wilson, Winkler, Wise, Wood, Young, and Zavala. This area excludes any established or future export port locations, which are serviced by FGIS.

AMS is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by Plainview and Texas Grain. In the designation process, comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant(s) are particularly helpful. All comments will also become a matter of public record and made available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov.

AMS considers applications, comments, and other available information, such as audit reports, when determining which applicants will be designated.

The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) revoked Northeast Indiana Grain Inspection Inc.'s designation as an agency that may perform official grain inspection and weighing services on August 21, 2023, due to its failure to comply with requirements of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA). Further information and documentation on this legal matter can be received by contacting the USDA Hearing Clerk's office at 202.720.4443 or via email at SM.OHA.hearingclerks@usda.gov. Due to the designation revocation in this territory, USDA seeks new applicants for the Decatur, IN, designation area. Applications must be received by December 15, 2023.

Additionally, the designation of the official agency listed below will end on the prescribed date:

Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). A designated agency may provide official inspection service and/or Class X or Class Y weighing services at locations other than port locations. Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the USGSA. Please see the regulation at 7 CFR 800.196 for further information and guidance.

The following identifies the specific areas of operation for designation applications.

Decatur, Indiana: The designation area includes parts of Indiana. Please see the December 12, 2016, issue of the Federal Register (81 FR 89428) for a description of the area open for designation. The designation area is listed under the subheading titled “IN INDIANA.”

Marshall, Michigan: The designation area includes parts of Michigan and Ohio. Please see the March 29, 2016, issue of the Federal Register (81 FR 17428-17431) for a description of the area open for designation. The designation area is listed under the subheading titled “Marshall, MI.”

Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas of the official agencies specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in the Decatur, IN, area will begin after a designation decision is issued by the Agricultural Marketing Service. The designation in the specified geographic area for Michigan is expected to begin no sooner than April 1, 2024. If you have questions about how to apply for designation or wish to request more information on the geographic areas open for designation, please contact FGISQACD@usda.gov.

Please note that sampling, weighing, and inspection services may be offered by designated agencies under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 for other commodities under the auspices of FGIS through separate cooperative service agreements with AMS. The service area for such cooperative agreements mirrors the USGSA designation area. For further information, see 7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. or contact FGISQACD@usda.gov.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

The regulations in 7 CFR part 340 govern the movement (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of certain organisms modified or produced through genetic engineering. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) first issued these regulations in 1987 under the authority of the Federal Plant Pest Act of 1957 and the Plant Quarantine Act of 1912, two acts that were subsumed into the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ) in 2000, along with other provisions. Since 1987, APHIS has amended the regulations seven times, in 1988, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1997, 2005, and 2020.

On May 18, 2020, we published in the Federal Register (85 FR 29790-29838, Docket No. APHIS-2018-0034) a final rule  1 that marked the first comprehensive revision of the regulations since they were established in 1987. The final rule provided a clear, predictable, and efficient regulatory pathway for innovators, facilitating the development of organisms developed using genetic engineering that are unlikely to pose plant pest risks.

The May 2020 final rule included regulatory exemptions for certain categories of modified plants. Specifically, § 340.1(b) exempted plants that contain a single modification of one of the following types, specified in § 340.1(b)(1) through (3):

• The genetic modification is a change resulting from cellular repair of a targeted DNA break in the absence of an externally provided repair template; or

• The genetic modification is a targeted single base pair substitution; or

• The genetic modification introduces a gene known to occur in the plant's gene pool or makes changes in a targeted sequence to correspond to a known allele of such a gene or to a known structural variation present in the gene pool.

In addition to the modifications listed above, § 340.1(b)(4) provides that the Administrator may propose to exempt plants with additional modifications, based on what could be achieved through conventional breeding. Such proposals may either be APHIS-initiated or may be initiated via a request that is accompanied by adequate supporting information and submitted by another party. In either case, APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register of the proposal, along with the supporting documentation, and will request public comments. After reviewing the comments, APHIS will publish a subsequent notice in the Federal Register announcing its final determination. A list specifying modifications a plant can contain and be exempt pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) is available on the APHIS website at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology.

On July 19, 2021, we published a notice in the Federal Register (86 FR 37988-37989, Docket No. APHIS-2020-0072) proposing to exempt plants with any of the following additional modifications:

• Cellular repair of a targeted DNA break in the same location on two homologous chromosomes, in the absence of a repair template, resulting in homozygous or heterozygous biallelic mutations, each of which is a loss of function mutation;

• Contiguous deletion of any size resulting from cellular repair of a targeted DNA break in the presence of an externally supplied repair template; or

• Cellular repair of two targeted DNA breaks on a single chromosome or at the same location on two homologous chromosomes, when the repair results in a contiguous deletion of any size in the presence or absence of a repair template, or in a contiguous deletion of any size combined with an insertion of DNA in the absence of a repair template.

We received comments on that notice that suggested these exemptions were piecemeal and could be replaced with an overarching exemption. Furthermore, comments included additional exemptions beyond those that we proposed.

Based on the comments that we received and our own subsequent review and analysis of conventional breeding techniques that are currently employed, we are withdrawing the original three proposed exemptions and are proposing five new types of modifications a plant can contain and qualify for exemption from regulation pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of § 340.1.

First, we propose that a diploid or autopolyploid plant with any combination of loss of function modifications in one to all alleles of a single genetic locus, or an allopolyploid plant with any combination of loss of function modifications in one or both alleles of a single genetic locus on up to four pairs of homoeologous chromosomes, without the insertion of exogenous DNA, would qualify for exemption (proposed exemption 340.1(b)(4)(vi)(Additional Modification (AM)1)). (Because this exemption would be found solely on the internet, and not in the regulations themselves, the “AM” nomenclature would be used to identify the method by which it and the other exemptions proposed in this notice were added.) This category would apply to scenarios that might not be expressly described in the exemptions codified in the May 2020 final rule (namely, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of § 340.1) but would achieve an end result that can also be accomplished by those exemptions. In addition, it more broadly extends, compared to the 2020 rule, loss of function mutations without the insertion of exogenous DNA to polyploid plants.

Second, we propose that any diploid or autopolyploid plant in which the genetic modification is a single contiguous deletion of any size, resulting from cellular repair of one or two targeted DNA breaks on a single chromosome or at the same location(s) on two or more homologous chromosomes, without insertion of DNA, or with insertion of DNA in the absence of a repair template, would qualify for exemption (proposed exemption 340.1(b)(4)(vi)(AM2)). As proposed, additional modifications to homoeologous loci of homoeologous chromosomes of allopolyploids would not qualify for this exemption.

Third, we propose to extend the modifications described in the exemptions found at § 340.1(b)(2) and (3) to all alleles of a genetic locus on the homologous chromosomes of autopolyploids (proposed exemption 340.1(b)(4)(vi)(AM3)). As proposed, additional modifications to homoeologous loci of homoeologous chromosomes of allopolyploids would not qualify for this exemption.

Fourth, we propose that plants with up to four modifications of a certain type, made simultaneously or sequentially, that individually qualify for exemption, and provided each modification is at a different genetic locus, would be exempt from regulation because such modifications are achievable through conventional breeding methods (proposed exemption 340.1(b)(4)(vi)(AM4)). Allopolyploid plants could contain up to four of the proposed loss of function modifications described herein or four modifications described under § 340.1(b)(2) and (3) or a combination thereof, provided each modification is introduced into just one allele; however, allopolyploid plants would not be exempt if they contain a modification that is allowable only in diploid and autopolyploid plants.

Fifth, we propose that plants that have previously completed voluntary reviews confirming the plants' exempt status as described in § 340.1(e), which provides the process by which developers can request such a confirmation of exempt status, and that have been produced, grown, and observed consistent with conventional breeding methods appropriate for the plant species, could be successively modified in accordance with any exemption under § 340.1(b) of the regulations (proposed exemption 340.1(b)(4)(vi)(AM5)).

We are also making available for public review scientific literature that we considered prior to initiating this notice, which demonstrates that in polyploid plants (such as wheat, potato, tobacco, and canola), all alleles of a single genetic locus can be modified by conventional breeding to generate loss of function mutations. This notice provides scientific literature supporting our rationale for why the proposed modifications could extend to any autopolyploid species and our rationale for why some of the proposed modifications could extend to any allopolyploid species. This notice includes examples of conventional breeding programs in sterile crops such as banana, long cycle crops such as forest trees, crops with complex genomes such as strawberry and sugarcane, and highly heterozygous crops such as potato and apple. This notice discusses literature describing the approach of pyramiding genes ( i.e., the simultaneous selection for and/or introduction of multiple genes during plant breeding) to create multiplex edits and provide examples in soybean, coffee, tobacco, tomato, potato, corn, and rice where four to seven traits are pyramided by conventional breeding methods. We also provide references to literature describing how homozygous autopolyploids can be created through conventional breeding methods in autopolyploid plants that are not applicable to allopolyploids plants. We also explain how the categories for loss of function modifications, and successive modifications for plants that have completed the voluntary confirmation process and that have been produced, grown, and observed are consistent with conventional breeding methods for the appropriate plant species. This action would reduce the regulatory burden for developers of certain plants modified using genetic engineering that are not expected to pose plant pest risks greater than the plant pest risks posed by plants modified by conventional breeding methods and, thus, should not be subjected to regulation under part 340.

Commenters to the previous July 2021 notice suggested that we “establish a single exemption category for indel modifications resulting from modifications to the alleles of a single gene on homologous chromosomes.” We recognize that as new tools emerge, there may be DNA modifications that are not expressly covered by the three exemptions described in the July 2021 notice. For example, base editing and prime editing involve nicking a single strand rather than making double strand breaks. In the case of base editing, a deaminase further modifies the DNA before the changes are resolved by natural repair. In prime editing, prime-editing guide RNA contains an internal template and further uses reverse transcriptase to incorporate the edit. When base editing is used to introduce a loss of function (“LOF”) mutation to a single genetic locus, multiple changes may occur within the single genetic locus. The fact that multiple changes occur is irrelevant if one or more of the changes leads to a loss of function. Both base-editing and prime-editing can be used to make modifications that conform to the spirit of the modifications codified in § 340.1(b)(1) that are exempt from regulation, but they are not expressly described in the modifications. Creating a category for any DNA modification that leads to LOF of a single gene on homologous chromosomes would cover scenarios we did not specifically describe that are nevertheless consistent with our intent for modifications that would qualify for exemption in § 340.1(b)(1) because they are achievable through conventional breeding methods.

Accordingly, in this notice, we propose that diploid or autopolyploid plants with any combination of loss of function modifications in one to all alleles of a single genetic locus, or allopolyploid plants with any combination of loss of function modifications in one or both alleles of a single genetic locus on up to four homoeologous chromosomes, without the insertion of exogenous DNA, would be exempt from regulation. In the comment period for the previous notice, several papers were brought to our attention describing the successful breeding of tetraploid (AABB genomes) and hexaploid (AABBDD genomes) wheat lines with loss of function alleles for all four or six homoeologous alleles, respectively. In one case, 2 homologous null mutations in starch synthase from both the A and B genomes were isolated from the M2 generation of ethyl methansesulfonate (EMS) mutagenized tetraploid wheat lines. Both null mutants were crossed to generate the null lacking all 4-functioning starch synthase alleles. In a second case, 3 the exomes of 2735 EMS mutagenized lines were sequenced, and more than 10 million mutations were identified covering about 90 percent of the three wheat genomes. The authors explained how loss of function homozygous mutants could be successfully isolated from both genomes in the third generation of tetraploid wheat and homozygous mutants across all three genomes in the fourth generation of a hexaploid wheat. The literature contains several additional cases of double and triple null mutants successfully created by conventional breeding (naturally occurring transposon induced mutation/ems mutagenesis, tilling, and marker assisted breeding) in the polyploids, wheat, tobacco, potato and canola. 4 The combination of mutagenesis and exome-sequencing described by Krasileva et al. 2017, has also been applied in tetraploid tobacco. 5 Based on these examples, it appears this methodology can be used to create the modifications captured by the exemption in any species that can be bred conventionally. Breeding programs exist for crops that are challenging to breed, such as the largely sterile triploid bananas, 6 forest trees with long generation times, 7 and crops with complex genomes such as strawberry  8 and sugarcane, 9 or highly heterozygous genomes such as potato  10 or apple. 11 We propose that any diploid or autopolyploid plant that contains any combination of loss of function modifications in one to all alleles of a single genetic locus without the insertion of exogenous DNA, or any allopolyploid plant with any combination of loss of function modifications in one or both alleles of a single genetic locus on up to four homoeologous chromosomes, would qualify for exemption because such modifications are achievable through conventional breeding methods. The limitation to four homoeologous chromosomes in polyploid plants is explained further below.

Modifications resulting from insertions of exogenous DNA do not currently qualify for exemption and, likewise, LOF mutations created through insertion of exogenous DNA such as T-DNA (the transferred DNA of the (Ti) plasmid of Agrobacterium used in the transformation of plant cells) or transposons (DNA sequences that can move and integrate to different locations within the genome), would not qualify for exemption as proposed. LOF mutations could qualify for more than one exemption. For example, LOF mutations may still qualify for exemption § 340.1(b)(3), if they are already known to occur in the gene pool of the plant species.

By loss of function, we mean a mutation in which the altered gene product prevents the normal gene product from being produced or renders it inactive. 12 By gain of function (GOF) mutation, we mean a mutation that alters the properties of the protein product so that it has novel properties or has greater activity because a regulatory site has been lost  13 and is usually dominant, semidominant, or codominant. In some cases, a mutation can render a protein to be non-functioning but lead to a new phenotype. For example, mutations that knockout the repressor protein CLV3 (CLAVATA 3) result in larger sized fruit. 14 These mutations are a LOF modification that would qualify for exemption. In cases where a deletion or frameshift mutation leads to a new molecular function or increased expression of the altered gene product, the modification would not qualify for the new exemption. For example, a codon deletion in protoporphyrinogen oxidase conferred resistance to PPO type herbicide inhibitors. 15 This deletion results in a protein with a new molecular function, is dominant, and does not lack the molecular function of the wild type (it is still able to convert protoporphyrinogen IX to protoporphyrin IX). This particular example is a naturally occurring mutation described in Amaranthus tuberculatus. If genome editing were used to confer herbicide tolerance to a crop plant by deleting the corresponding codon by DNA break and repair, the modified plant would likely qualify for the exemption found at § 340.1(b)(1). Thus, although GOF mutations will not qualify for the proposed exemption 340.1(b)(4)(vi)(AM4) as listed in the above-mentioned exemptions-confirmations website, there are some GOF mutations that could meet the criteria for exemptions at § 340.1(b)(1) through (3). For example, promoter deletions can result in either LOF or GOF. If a promoter deletion eliminates or greatly decreases expression of the downstream gene, that would be a LOF modification and would qualify for this exemption or the § 340.1(b)(1) exemption. If the promoter deletion results in an increase of expression of the downstream gene, that would be a GOF modification and it would not qualify for this exemption but would qualify for the § 340.1(b)(1) exemption. In any plant, GOF modifications from faulty DNA repair qualify under exemptions § 340.1(b)(1) for a DNA break on a single chromosome or at the same location on two homologous chromosomes. In addition, GOF modifications from faulty repair could qualify for exemption under 340.1(b)(4)(vi) AM2 for one or two DNA breaks to the same location in the absence of an external template on all homologous chromosomes in autopolyploids (see below). In short, our proposal does not extend to all modifications that involve the insertion or deletion of bases (“indel”) because GOF modifications are statistically less common than LOF mutations and the same GOF mutation would not be expected to occur across multiple alleles in allopolyploids by conventional breeding.

We welcome comments from the public on the scope of this proposed exemption.

In the published notice of July 2021, we proposed that plants with a modification that results in a single contiguous deletion of any size using an external repair template or using two targeted DNA breaks on a single chromosome would be exempt from regulation because they are achievable through conventional breeding methods. This type of modification allows deletions to contain more than one genetic locus. Based on the comments and information we received in response to the July 2021 notice, we are clarifying how the contiguous deletion of any size would apply to polyploids. Based on examples and methods described above, we propose that any diploid or autopolyploid plant with a genetic modification that is a single contiguous deletion of any size, resulting from cellular repair of one or two targeted DNA breaks on a single chromosome or at the corresponding location(s) on two or more homologous chromosomes, without insertion of DNA, or with the insertion of DNA in the absence of a repair template, would be exempt because these modifications are achievable through conventional breeding methods. This proposed modification allows for multiple modifications in autopolyploids, but not allopolyploids. This is because the literature indicates this type of modification can be achieved through conventional breeding in autopolyploids to produce the same deletion throughout the genome. For example, though potato is highly heterozygous, a highly homozygous line was established from a doubled monoploid derived by another culture of a heterozygous diploid  16 and this line in turn was used to create homozygous tetraploid lines by another round of whole genome doubling. 17 In this way, conventional breeding was used to produce homozygous autopolyploids from allele variants in the haploid genome. Additionally, through random assortment of homologous chromosomes in autopolyploids, it is possible to achieve homozygosity of a modification across all chromosomes, while maintaining a high degree of heterozygosity across a genome, particularly when double reduction progeny are selected. 18 Based on our review of the literature, we believe that this type of modification is not possible through conventional breeding methods for allopolyploids, which is why the proposed modification applies only to autopolyploids.

We propose to extend the modifications described in § 340.1(b)(2) and (3) to all alleles of a genetic locus on the homologous chromosomes of autopolyploids. This would allow the following modifications to all alleles of a single gene on all homologous chromosomes in autopolyploids:

• a targeted single base pair substitution, or

• introduction of a gene known to occur in the plant's gene pool or make changes in a targeted sequence to correspond to a known allele of such a gene or to a known structural variation present in the gene pool.

For the reasons discussed above, the modifications described in § 340.1(b)(2) and (3) would only extend to all loci on the homologous chromosomes in autopolyploids plants and not to all homoeologous loci in allopolyploids plants.

We have received several comments that multiplexing genome edits that individually qualify for exemption should qualify for exemption when achieved simultaneously or sequentially because conventional breeding allows the combination of multiple desired traits. In the 2020 preamble, APHIS noted, “[i]nitially, the exemptions will apply only to plants containing a single targeted modification in one of the categories listed. APHIS anticipates scientific information and/or experience may, over time, allow APHIS to list additional modifications that plants can contain and still be exempted from the regulations so that the regulatory system stays up to date and keeps pace with advances in scientific knowledge, evidence, and experience. This may include multiple simultaneous genomic changes.” 85 FR 29790, 29794. We have verified that there is literature on this topic, including literature describing gene pyramiding. 19 One commenter provided us with a patent for a tobacco plant made homozygous in five separate loci through conventional breeding. 20 Additionally, we observed cases where four to seven traits were combined in soybean, 21 potato, 22 coffee, 23 corn, 24 tomato, 25 and rice  26 suggesting that pyramiding genes is becoming a standard practice in conventional breeding and four traits are conservatively within the norm. The examples provided include four different diploid species, an autopolyploid species (potato), an allopolyploid species (coffee), which is also a tree, suggesting that gene pyramiding is widely applicable to crop plants. When discussing the first proposed exemption, we noted new techniques that created DNA modifications using chemical mutagenesis while characterizing the genome using molecular analysis both of which are applicable to any species. We also provide examples of crops that have active breeding programs even though they are challenging to breed. Based on feedback during the comment period of the 2021 notice and our own review of the literature, it is our current view that a single targeted modification is more conservative than what can be achieved by conventional breeding in all species.

Accordingly, we propose that plants with up to four modifications of a certain type that individually qualify for exemption and that are made simultaneously or sequentially would be exempt from regulation, provided that that each modification is at a different genetic locus. This is because such modifications are achievable through conventional breeding methods. For the reasons discussed above, allopolyploid plants could contain up to four of the proposed loss of function modifications described herein. Allopolyploid plants would also qualify for exemption with the following changes to a single pair of homologous chromosomes:

• § 340.1(b)(2)—a genetic modification is a targeted single base pair substitution; and

• § 340.1(b)(3)—the introduction of a gene known to occur in the plant's gene pool or makes changes in a targeted sequence to correspond to a known allele of such a gene or to a known structural variation present in the gene pool.

We propose that up to four such modifications would qualify for exemption in allopolyploids provided that each change is heterozygous. We note that the introduction of multiple dominant resistance traits has been accomplished by conventional breeding in both allopolyploid coffee (see footnote 23) and autopolyploid potato (see footnote 22). However, we are not aware of multiple homologous traits pyramided in allopolyploids.

Modifications would be counted based on loci modified. For an autopolyploid, such as potato, which has four alleles of the same genetic locus, a change to make four homozygous copies of an allele would count as one multiplex modification. However, in an allopolyploid, such as canola, which has two pairs of homoeologous chromosomes, LOF edits to all alleles (two loci and four alleles) would count as two multiplex modifications. We welcome comments from the public on the number of individual modifications that are achievable simultaneously or sequentially in plants based on conventional breeding methods, and comments on the reasons for or against allowing for simultaneous or sequential modifications in all plants. We emphasize that multiplexed or sequential modifications must be made to distinct loci; multiple modifications to a single gene would not qualify for exemption except in the cases where the gene is known to occur in the plant's gene pool.

We have also received questions on whether a modified plant that meets the criteria for exemption from the regulations at part 340, may undergo successive or further modification. In the preamble that accompanied the final rule, we noted that we would address the possibility for sequential modification ( i.e., subsequent or further modification to an exempt plant) in a future notice using the process described in § 340.1(b)(4). In conventional breeding, it is standard practice to introduce new traits through successive crosses. Conventional breeding affords the opportunity to evaluate and select the progeny of a cross that will be advanced in the breeding program. Along these lines, we propose that plants that have previously completed the voluntary confirmation process (also called the “CR” process) found at § 340.1(e) and that have been produced, grown, and observed consistent with conventional breeding methods for the appropriate plant species, may be successively modified in accordance with the exemptions because allowing for such successive modification is consistent with plant development in conventional breeding programs. Plants that are merely hypothetical in nature would not be eligible for subsequent hypothetical modifications because they have not yet been produced, grown, and observed consistent with conventional breeding methods for the appropriate plant species.

The following table summarizes the proposed exemptions and their applicability to polyploids:

After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce in a future notice our decision regarding any modifications that plants can contain and qualify for exemption.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

The meeting agenda will include:

1. Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) discussion;

2. Mitchell Lake discussion;

3. Forest Plan Revision update;

4. New membership outreach update; and

5. Elect Vice-Chair.

The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 7 days after the meeting date listed under DATES .

Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , by or before the deadline, for all questions related to the meeting. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received upon request.

Meeting Accommodations: The meeting location is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the USDA provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpretation, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation to the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

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.

Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the Board. To ensure that the recommendations of the Board have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

The Access Board is publishing this notice to inform the public of the creation of a new system of records relating to the investigation and adjudication of complaints filed with the agency alleging violations of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA). The ABA requires that buildings or facilities that were constructed or altered by or on behalf of the United States, or leased or financed in whole or in part by the United States, after August 12, 1968, be accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Access Board enforces the ABA through the investigation of complaints filed by members of the public or federal employees. See 29 U.S.C. 792(b)(1). Complaints may be submitted by any person and may be filed anonymously. Once a complaint is filed, it is electronically entered into the agency's complaint tracking system and the Board investigates the complaint according to the procedures in 36 CFR part 1150. Complainants who choose to provide their contact information (name, phone number, email address, and/or physical mailing address), will be kept up to date on the status of the investigation and any corrective action taken by the agency or department in question. In the past, this information was not considered to be kept in a system of records, because while the contact information was contained within the complaint system, individual complaints were not pulled by an identifier related to the complainant. The Board recently updated to a new platform for this system and now believes it necessary to establish this system as a system of records, so that on occasion the compliance specialist can pull specific complaints by complainant name or email address. This will not change the processing of the complaint and complaints can still be filed anonymously or complainants can choose which personally identifying information to provide, such as just their name and email.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a briefing on November 17, 2023, on the federal government's response to anti-Asian racism in the United States. The Commission's investigation seeks to examine the federal government's role in documenting, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes against persons of Asian descent.

This briefing is open to the public and is accessible via live stream at https://www.youtube.com/usccr. (* Streaming information subject to change.)

Computer assisted real-time transcription (CART) will be provided. The web link to access CART (in English) on Friday, November 17, 2023, is https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=USCCR. Please note that CART is text-only translation that occurs in real time during the meeting and is not an exact transcript.

To request additional accommodations, persons with disabilities should email access@usccr.gov by Thursday, November 16, 2023, indicating “accommodations” in the subject line.

** Public Comments will also be accepted through written testimony.

* Schedule is subject to change.

In addition to the testimony collected on Friday, November 17, 2023, via public briefing, the Commission welcomes the submission of material for consideration as we prepare our report. Please submit such information to victimsofcrime@usccr.gov no later than December 15, 2023, or by mail to OCRE/Public Comments, ATTN: Anti-Asian Discrimination, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. The Commission encourages the use of email to provide public comments due to the current COVID-19 pandemic.

This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Liliana Schiller, Support Services Specialist, at lschiller@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Kayla Fajota at kfajota@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at lschiller@usccr.gov.

In accordance with Public Law 116-156, 1134 Stat. 700 (2020), the Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys (CSSBMB) will hold its First Quarter Business Meeting exploring CSSBMB business items, operations, and next steps.

This business meeting is open to the public via livestream on the Commission on Civil Rights' YouTube Page at https://www.youtube.com/user/USCCR/videos. ( Streaming information subject to change. ) Public participation is available for the event with view access, along with an audio option for listening. Computer assisted real-time transcription (CART) will be provided. The web link to access CART (in English) on Friday, November 17 is https://www.steamtext.net/player?event=USCCR ( *subject to change, please visit usccr.gov for updates ). Please note that CART is text-only translation that occurs in real time during the meeting and is not an exact transcript.

* Date and meeting details are subject to change. For more information on the CSSBMB or the upcoming public briefing, please visit www.usccr.gov/CSSBMB and CSSBMB's Instagram, Facebook, and X.

On August 15, 2023, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce), pursuant to section 702(h) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (the Act), published the quarterly update to the annual listing of foreign government subsidies on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty covering the period January 1, 2023, through March 31, 2023. 1 In the First Quarter 2023 Update, we requested that any party that had information on foreign government subsidy programs that benefited articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty submit such information to Commerce. 2 We received no comments, information, or requests for consultation from any party.

Pursuant to section 702(h) of the Act, we hereby provide Commerce's update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the period April 1, 2023, through June 30, 2023. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available.

Commerce will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed. Commerce encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. ITA-2020-0005, “Quarterly Update to Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty.” The materials in the docket will not be edited to remove identifying or contact information, and Commerce cautions against including any information in an electronic submission that the submitter does not want publicly disclosed. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF formats only. All comments should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.

On December 3, 2020, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2017-2018 AD administrative review of MLWF from China. 1 Commerce determined that mandatory respondents Jinlong and Guyu did not make sales of MLWF from China at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR. 2 Thus, Commerce calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin and cash deposit rate (adjusted for subsidy offsets) of 0.00 percent for Jinlong and Guyu, which it applied to the non-individually-examined companies that were found to be eligible for a separate rate. 3

The American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring (the petitioner) appealed Commerce's Final Results. On May 5, 2023, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce. 4 In the Remand Order, the CIT directed Commerce to revise the surrogate manufacturing overhead (MOH) ratio calculation by including the entire amount of indirect production expenses stated in the surrogate financial statement in the numerator, or otherwise explain why it cannot do so. 5 The CIT held that Commerce's determination of the MOH ratio was not supported by substantial evidence because: (1) limiting overhead expenses in the numerator to depreciation, other materials, and third party service expenses is unreasonable in light of the universe of expenses normally considered to make up overhead; and (2) Commerce's claim that using the indirect production expenses entry in the numerator of the MOH ratio may be distortive is a speculative conclusion. 6 Additionally, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce to reconsider its application of its Labor Rate Policy, which assumes 24 working days per month, 5.5 working days per week, and eight working hours per day, to calculate a surrogate hourly labor rate. 7 If Commerce continued to use this policy, the CIT directed Commerce to explain: (1) the source for the assumptions; (2) why it is a reasonable basis on which to calculate the surrogate labor rate; and (3) how it is more specific to Romania than information provided by the petitioner. 8

In its remand redetermination, issued on August 24, 2023, Commerce revised the surrogate MOH ratio, explained the assumptions underlying its Labor Rate Policy, and revised the surrogate hourly labor rate. 9 On October 30, 2023, the CIT sustained Commerce's final redetermination. 10

In its decision in Timken, 11 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 12 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's October 30, 2023, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its Final Results with respect to Jinlong, Guyu, and the non-individually-examined separate rate companies, as follows:

For seven separate rate respondents that do not have a superseding cash deposit rate, 15 Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Because Jinlong, Guyu, and the remaining separate rate respondents have a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final results published in a subsequent administrative review, we will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP. This notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate for these companies.

At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries that: were exported by Jinlong, Guyu, and the non-individually-examined separate rate respondents listed in the Appendix, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period December 1, 2017, through November 30, 2018. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.

In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise exported by Jinlong, Guyu, and the non-individually-examined separate rate respondents in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), where appropriate. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the weighted-average dumping margin or an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Where the weighted-average dumping margin or an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, 16 we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various AD and CVD orders with September anniversary dates.

All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

With respect to AD administrative reviews, if a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify Commerce within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . All submissions must be filed electronically at https://access.trade.gov, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. 1 Such submissions are subject to verification, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on Commerce's service list.

In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 35 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted within seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments within five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the following guidelines regarding collapsing of companies for purposes of respondent selection will apply. In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” ( e.g., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating AD rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, Commerce will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of the review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of the AD proceeding ( e.g., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review, or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to the review, if Commerce determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, Commerce will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, Commerce will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection.

Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general, each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of a particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act. 2 Section 773(e) of the Act states that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial responses to section D of the questionnaire.

In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single AD deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a Separate Rate Application or Certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to Commerce no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding  3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name, 4 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Application will be available on Commerce's website at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Applications are due to Commerce no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

Exporters and producers must file a timely Separate Rate Application or Certification if they want to be considered for individual examination. Furthermore, exporters and producers who submit a Separate Rate Application or Certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following AD and CVD orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than September 30, 2024.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an AD order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), Commerce, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether AD duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant “gap” period of the order ( i.e., the period following the expiry of provisional measures and before definitive measures were put into place), if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures ( e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (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). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 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. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the Final Rule, 6 available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-07-17/pdf/2013-17045.pdf, prior to submitting factual information in this segment. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 7

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information using the formats provided at the end of the Final Rule. 8 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable certification requirements.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. 9 In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning CBP data; and (5) Q&V questionnaires. 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 the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This policy also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which Commerce will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Please review the Final Rule, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on September 21, 2023, Commerce published its affirmative final determination in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of freight rail couplers from Mexico. 1 On November 6, 2023, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination, pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of LTFV imports of freight rail couplers from Mexico. 2

The products covered by this order are freight rail couplers from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the appendix to this notice.

On November 6, 2023, in accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of freight rail couplers from Mexico. Therefore, Commerce is issuing this antidumping duty order in accordance with sections 735(c)(2) and 736 of the Act. Because the ITC determined that imports of freight rail couplers from Mexico are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Mexico, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of freight rail couplers from Mexico. With the exception of entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, as further described below, antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of freight rail couplers from Mexico, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after May 3, 2023, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. 3

Except as noted in the “Provisional Measures” section of this notice, in accordance with section 736 of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of freight rail couplers from Mexico. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the cash deposit rates listed in the table below. The all-others rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed, as appropriate.

The estimated weighted-average dumping margins for this antidumping order are as follows:

Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of freight rail couplers from Mexico, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months. Commerce's Preliminary Determination was published on May 3, 2023. 4 Commerce's Final Determination was extended and was published on September 15, 2023. 5

The extended provisional measures period, beginning on the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination, ended on October 29, 2023. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, 6 Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of freight rail couplers from Mexico entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after October 29, 2023, the final day on which the provisional measures were in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register .

On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the final rule titled “ Regulations to Improve Administration and Enforcement of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws ” in the Federal Register . 7 On September 27, 2021, Commerce also published the notice titled “ Scope Ruling Application; Annual Inquiry Service List; and Informational Sessions ” in the Federal Register . 8 The Final Rule and Procedural Guidance provide that Commerce will maintain an annual inquiry service list for each order or suspended investigation, and any interested party submitting a scope ruling application or request for circumvention inquiry shall serve a copy of the application or request on the persons on the annual inquiry service list for that order, as well as any companion order covering the same merchandise from the same country of origin. 9

In accordance with the Procedural Guidance, for orders published in the Federal Register after November 4, 2021, Commerce will create an annual inquiry service list segment in Commerce's online e-filing and document management system, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Electronic Service System (ACCESS), available at https://access.trade.gov, within five business days of publication of the notice of the order. Each annual inquiry service list will be saved in ACCESS, under each case number, and under a specific segment type called “AISL-Annual Inquiry Service List.”  10

Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the Procedural Guidance, the new annual inquiry service list will be in place until the following year, when the Opportunity Notice for the anniversary month of the order is published.

Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website at https://access.trade.gov.

In the Final Rule, Commerce stated that, “after an initial request and placement on the annual inquiry service list, both petitioners and foreign governments will automatically be placed on the annual inquiry service list in the years that follow.”  11 Accordingly, as stated above, the petitioners and foreign governments should submit their initial entry of appearance after publication of this notice in order to appear in the first annual inquiry service list. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(n)(3), the petitioners and foreign governments will not need to resubmit their entries of appearance each year to continue to be included on the annual inquiry service list. However, the petitioners and foreign governments are responsible for making amendments to their entries of appearance during the annual update to the annual inquiry service list in accordance with the procedures described above.

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to freight rail couplers from Mexico pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at https://www.trade.gov/data-visualization/adcvd-proceedings.

This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

The Committee will review Framework 38 (FW38): review specifications alternatives in FW38 and select final preferred alternatives. FW38 will set specifications including the overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch/annual catch limit (ABC/ACLs), days-at-sea (DAS), access area allocations for Limited Access (LA) vessels, quota and access area trip allocation to the Limited Access General Category (LAGC) Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) component, Total Allowable Landings (TAL) for Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) management area, a target-TAC for LAGC incidental catch and set-asides for the observer and research programs for fishing year 2024, and default specifications for fishing year 2025. This action also considers increasing VMS ping rates for scallop vessels to improve enforcement in the scallop fishery. Other business will be discussed, if necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.

On July 10, 2023, NMFS received a request from the Haines Borough for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving involving impact, vibratory, and down-the-hole (DTH) drilling to replace the Lutak Dock. Following NMFS' review of the application, Haines Borough submitted a revised version on October 11, 2023. The application was deemed adequate and complete October 16, 2023. Haines Borough's request is for take of six species of marine mammals by Level B harassment and, for a subset of three of these species, Level A harassment. Neither Haines Borough nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

The purpose of the project is to replace the dock facility, constructed in 1953, that has reached the end of its 60-year service life and has experienced local structural failures. The Lutak Dock is an important maritime shipping link that is connected by road to the mainland of Alaska and Canada and is an important connection for the Alaska Marine Highway System to many other Alaskan ports. Takes of marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment are expected to occur due to impact, DTH, and vibratory pile driving and removal. The project would occur in Lutak inlet which is located in Haines Borough in southeast Alaska. It is expected to take up to 234 non-consecutive days to complete the pile driving and removal activities.

Construction activities are expected to over a 1-year year period from winter 2023 to winter of 2024. It is expected to take up to 234 non-consecutive days of in water work over a 1-year work window to complete the pile driving activities. Pile driving would be completed intermittently throughout daylight hours. All pile driving is expected to be completed during one phase of construction.

The project area is in the Haines Borough on the southern shore of Lutak Inlet, at the upper reaches of Lynn Canal in southeast Alaska. Lutak Dock is located approximately 6 kilometers (km) (4 miles (mi)) northwest of downtown Haines. Lutak Inlet is approximately 9 km (6 mi)-long and measures less than 2 km (1 mi) across from shore to shore at its widest point and is about 110 meters (m) (360 feet (ft)) deep at its entrance between Tanani Point and Taiya Point. Depths at the proposed action area are shallower, approximately 8 m (25 ft) to 30 m (100 ft). To the north of the proposed action area, the Ferebee River empties into the Taiyasanka Harbor and then into Lutak Inlet; to the west of the proposed action area, Chilkoot Lake empties into Lutak Inlet via the Chilkoot River (see Figure 7 in Haines Borough's application).

Figure 1. Project location of the Lutak Dock Replacement project

The Haines Borough proposes to encapsulate the existing Lutak Dock structure with a new dock structure of similar design. In-water construction activities associated with the project would include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and removal, and DTH installation. Pile removal may also be completed using a “dead pull” method, where a pile is tethered to a crane and is removed directly. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. A DTH hammer is essentially a drill bit that drills through the bedrock using a rotating function like a normal drill, in concert with a hammering mechanism operated by a pneumatic (or sometimes hydraulic) component integrated into the DTH hammer to increase speed of progress through the substrate.

Pile removal would consist of 24 16 inches (in) steel pipe piles (41 centimeters (cm)) that make up the 4 mooring dolphins and 1 24-in (61-cm) steel guide pile. These piles would all be removed using dead pull or vibratory removal methods. Dead pull methods would not have impacts on marine mammals; however, we assume that all pile removal is conducted using vibratory hammer. A template frame would then be welded to 42 36-in (91-cm) temporary piles that is capable of holding 10 permanent piles in each section. The temporary piles would be set in place using vibratory and impact hammers (as needed). The template frame would be used to position the 180 42-in (107-cm) permanent piles across the length of the dock. Up to 10 permanent piles would be set at a time, before moving the template to the next position to install the next 10 piles. Permanent piles would be set with vibratory hammers and if required, impact hammers would be used to drive the pile past any overburden to the bedrock. Once the pile reaches bedrock DTH systems would socket the pile approximately 10-ft into the bedrock. A permanent 55.5-in (140-cm) sheet pile would be installed using vibratory and impact hammers and attached to the permanent piles to make up the new dock return wall.

Above-water construction would include replacement of the dock surface and fill material placement. This above-water work is not expected to result in any take of marine mammals, as there are no pinniped haulouts close enough to be affected by airborne noise.

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' Alaska SARs (Young et. al., 2023). All values presented in table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.