Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

70008

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 234 / Thursday, December 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
articles, including in certain cases for U.S. defense applications. Commerce took a deliberative approach in identifying what HTSUS codes could be considered for inclusion as GAEs and specified criteria in the December 14
rule to explain how the adoption of these GAEs would not undermine the national security objectives of the Section 232 process and would instead help to protect U.S. national security and economic security by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Section 232 exclusions process. Some commenters on the December 14 rule identified the implementation of the GAEs as an area where the transparency, effectiveness, and fairness of the process was improved.
However, other commenters on the December 14 rule raised concerns with the addition of the GAEs, in particular raising concerns that the addition would directly undermine U.S. national security and the objectives of the Section 232 exclusions process. These commenters on the December 14 rule highlighted that Commerce was not being consistent with the criteria Commerce used for justifying adding the GAEs. Therefore, these commenters noted that the addition of these GAEs had the potential to significantly undermine the national security objectives. These commenters also took issue with Commerces claim that these GAEs would not negatively impact U.S.
national security when describing the rationale for adding these GAEs.
Comments received for the December 14
rule in this area primarily focused on the creation of specific GAEs containing articles for which exclusion requests had previously received objections and/
or been denied. These commenters noted that for the addition of this subset of GAEs, regardless of the merits or rationale for adding the other GAEs, there was a disconnect with Commerces stated criteria from the December 14 rule. Therefore, this subset of 29 GAEs must be removed from the regulations.
Commerce understands the importance of having a transparent, fair, and efficient product exclusion request process, consistent with the directive provided by the President to create this type of process to mitigate any unintended consequences of imposing the tariffs on steel and aluminum in order to protect critical U.S. national security interests. The publication of todays rule should make further improvements in all three respects.
In addition, Commerce finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553bB to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:33 Dec 08, 2021

Jkt 256001

prior notice and the opportunity for public comment, and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553d3 to waive the delay in effective date, because such delays would be either impracticable or contrary to the public interest. In order to ensure that the actions taken to adjust imports do not undermine users of steel or aluminum that are subject to the remedial actions instituted by the Proclamations and that are critical to protecting the national security of the United States, the Presidential Proclamations authorized the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State, the United States Trade Representative, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and other senior Executive Branch officials as appropriate, to grant exclusions for the import of goods not currently available in the United States in a sufficient quantity or satisfactory quality, or for other specific national security reasons.
The Presidential Proclamations further directed the Secretary to, within ten days, issue procedures for submitting and granting these requests for exclusionsthis interim final rule fulfills that direction. As described above, the Secretary complied with the direction from the President with the publication of the March 19 rule, as well as in the improvements made in the September 11, June 10, and December 14 rules, and is taking the next step in improving the Section 232 exclusions process by making needed changes with the publication of todays rule, so as not to undermine the national security objectives for which the December 14
rule added the GAEs to the regulations.
The immediate implementation of an effective exclusion request process, consistent with the intent of the Presidential Proclamations, also required creating a process to allow any individual or organization in the United States to submit objections to submitted exclusion requests. The objection process was created with the publication of the March 19 rule, and the subsequent rules further improved specific aspects of the Section 232
exclusions process. The publication of todays rule makes needed changes in the Section 232 exclusions process to create the type of fair, transparent, and efficient process that was intended in the March 19, September 11, June 10, and December 14 rules, but commenters noted that the specific subset of GAEs that contained steel or aluminum articles for which exclusion requests had received objections and/or been
PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

denied. Todays rule makes critical changes to further ensure a fair, transparent, and efficient exclusion process by ensuring the GAEs that remain in the regulations are consistent with the objectives of the Section 232
exclusion process.
If this interim final rule were to be delayed to allow for public comment or to provide for a thirty-day delay in the date of effectiveness, companies in the United States would be unable to immediately benefit from the improvements made to the GAE process and could face significant economic hardship, which could potentially create a detrimental effect on the general U.S. economy and national security.
Comments received on the December 14
rule that were critical of the GAEs were clear that the removal of GAEs that consisted of HTSUS codes that received objections and/or denials under the Section 232 process was needed.
Commenters noted that failure to provide this additional improvement could allow the floodgates to open for imports of those articles, and that the influx of such articles could undermine the efficiency of the Section 232
process. Commenters also noted that if this specific improvement is not made, significant economic consequences could occur. Given the imports of these articles have already been objected to and/or denied in exclusion requests under the Section 232 process for national security reasons, allowing these specific GAEs to exist could undermine other critical U.S. national security interests.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for prior public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 705
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Classified information, Confidential business information, Imports, Investigations, National security.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 705 of subchapter A of 15 CFR chapter VII is amended as follows:
PART 705EFFECT OF IMPORTED
ARTICLES ON THE NATIONAL
SECURITY
1. The authority citation for part 705
continues to read as follows:

E:FRFM09DER1.SGM

09DER1