concern for commenters was the absence of a formal rebuttal process in
the March 19 rule. Commenters recommended that the final rule should
provide an even-handed, reciprocal process that allows interested
parties to respond to objections. The supplements added in the March 19
rule currently provide an unbalanced rebuttal process under which any
interested party may respond to a request, but the requester is not
permitted a response. These commenters believe that requesters must
have the ability as a matter of procedural due process to respond to
objections. These commenters recommended that the Department should
therefore provide requesters a 15-day period to respond to any
objections. These commenters asserted that a rebuttal process is
consistent with due process and responsible administrative decision
making.
    Therefore, these commenters recommended that the final rule should
provide: A limitation on rebuttals to potentially aggrieved domestic
manufacturers of specific articles sought to be excluded, plus a
response by the applicant; in the alternative, if rebuttals are not
limited to domestic manufacturers, a response by an interested party.
These commenters said that it is important to allow the requester an
opportunity to reply to the objections raised to make certain that the
Department has all the information necessary to determine whether
domestic steel producers can actually fulfill their needs. For U.S.
companies using steel in their production process, determining which
suppliers to use is a decision that is carefully considered based on
their economic and manufacturing needs. One commenter remarked,
``Without carefully assessing and soliciting reasons why certain steel
suppliers are used in this process, the

Department runs the risk of creating lasting damage to the U.S.
manufacturing sector.'' The commenters thus warned against finalizing
product exclusion requests without a complete record, arguing that
decisions in such cases could be arbitrary and capricious, unfairly
biased against U.S. businesses that rely on imported articles, or
exacerbate risks to national security.
    BIS response: The Department agrees that adding a rebuttal and
surrebuttal process will improve the process. The Department has
accordingly developed and is adding with the publication of today's
rule a rebuttal process described under paragraph (f) in the two
supplements to allow exclusion requesters to provide evidence refuting
objectors' claims of domestic capacity, as well as a surrebuttal
process to allow the objector to respond to the rebuttal. The rebuttal
and surrebuttal process will enhance the review process to ensure
Department decision makers have as much relevant information as
possible when assessing exclusion requests.
    Comment (f)(13)(ii): More criteria needs to be added for
objections. One commenter asserted that while the March 19 rule
indicated a 90-day response time, it does not state the standards for
reviewing an application or what consideration the Department will give
to objections, including those that readily admit to not currently
producing the subject material in the quantity, or the quality, needed.
Along similar lines, another commenter raised concern that the March 19
rule says very little about the nature of or criteria for lodging the
objection, other than it should ``clearly identify, and provide support
for, its opposition'' to the exclusion. The objection form provides
some additional requirements (including production capabilities in the
U.S. relative to the exclusion request production), but it simply
allows the objector to assert that it makes ``similar'' merchandise.
    BIS response: The Department agrees that it would be beneficial to
add additional information to the two supplements to better define the
review criteria for objections. Today's rule amends paragraph (d)(4) to
better define how the Department will review objections, including
providing application examples and important considerations for
objectors to take into account when they are making representations in
an objection. Today's rule also makes changes to paragraph (h) to
provide additional information for the disposition of objections. These
changes will improve the transparency of the objection review process
for the public.
    Comment (f)(13)(iii): Failure to object should result in automatic
approval. A commenter asserted that the supplements added in the March
19 do not indicate what happens if there is no objection filed to a
request within 30 days. This commenter recommends that the Department
should make clear in the final rule that the failure of any party to
object to an exclusion request should result in automatic approval of
the request, and the approval should be issued within 15 days of the
end of the 30-day period.
    BIS response: The Department will grant properly filed exclusion
requests which meet the requisite criteria, receive no objections, and
present no national security concerns. After an exclusion request's 30-
day comment period on regulations.gov, BIS will work with CBP to ensure
that the requester provided an accurate HTSUS statistical reporting
number. If so, BIS will immediately assess the request for satisfaction
of the requisite criteria and any national security concerns. If BIS
concludes that the request satisfies the criteria and identifies no
national security concerns with granting the request, BIS will
expeditiously post a decision on regulations.gov granting the exclusion
request. Today's rule adds in a new paragraph (h)(2)(ii) a streamlined
process for approving exclusion requests that do not receive
objections.
    Comment (f)(13)(iv): Objection based on ability to produce. One
commenter recommended that the objector be required to ensure that it
can produce the precise product described in the exclusion form and not
merely similar products. Many other commenters asserted similar
concerns and recommendations in this area about not falling into an
equivalent trap that would undermine the ability of these downstream
users of steel and aluminum to function effectively.
    BIS response: The Department agrees that an objector must be able
to make the same steel or aluminum product or one that is equivalent,
meaning ``substitutable for,'' the one identified in the exclusion
request that is the subject of the objection. As discussed above,
today's rule adds new paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) to better define what
constitutes satisfactory quality and (c)(6)(i) to better define what
constitutes sufficient and reasonably available steel or aluminum. The
rebuttal and surrebuttal process that today's rule is adding to
paragraphs (f) and (g) in the two supplements will enhance the review
process and the information the Department is receiving to ensure
appropriate decisions based on a common understanding of the facts at
hand.
    Comment (f)(13)(v): Objections based on future capacity. One
commenter requested that any objector objecting based on anticipated
capacity coming on line be required to provide specific evidence of
when such capacity will come on line and that it can and actually will
make the exact same product that is the subject of the exclusion. Many
commenters hit on similar concerns and made similar type of
recommendations.
    BIS response: The Department agrees that representations made by
objectors must be supported by information that identifies clearly
whether the capacity is currently available or will be ``immediately.''
As described above, today's rule is adding a new paragraph (c)(6)(i)
and revising paragraph (d)(4) to make these requirements clear to
objectors. The information required on the objection form will assist
the Department in making these determinations whether sufficient supply
is available in the U.S. to warrant denying an exclusion request. The
rebuttal and surrebuttal process in today's rule is adding to
paragraphs (f) and (g) in the two supplements will enhance this process
and the information the Department is receiving to ensure appropriate
decisions are being made based on a common understanding of the facts
at hand.
    Comment (f)(14): Add fair administrative and judicial review
procedures for exclusion determinations. One commenter requested that
the final rule articulate fair administrative and judicial review
procedures for exclusion determinations. This same commenter
recommended that final action by the Department be immediately
appealable to an appropriate administrative appellate body, and/or the
Court of International Trade. The commenter provided its thoughts on
what courts may be appropriate, including the limitations that may make
those suggested courts not the right legal venue. The commenter
asserted that while it believes the Court of International Trade may be
the appropriate forum for some appeals, there are clear exceptions to
the Court's jurisdiction where Presidential Proclamations involve
matters other than tariffs, such as national security.
    BIS response: There is no specific appeals process. However, if a
request is denied, a party is free to submit another request for
exclusion that may provide additional details or information to support
the request. As described above,

today's rule is also adding a rebuttal and surrebuttal process to allow
those individuals and organizations that submitted an exclusion request
that received objections to submit rebuttals during a 7 day review
period of the final objection posted for their exclusion request. These
changes will improve the process and allow such parties an opportunity
to provide additional information to the Department that they believe
should be considered.

The Department Should Provide Detailed Information on the Process for
Extending an Exclusion Request Beyond the Initial One Year

    Comment (f)(15)(i): Allow submissions of renewals prior to
expiration date of approved exclusions. A commenter recommended that
the final rule be revised to clarify that requests for the extension of
an exclusion be submitted prior to the exclusion's expiration to avoid
any disruption to the supply chain.
    BIS response: The Department agrees, but also clarifies that the
existing provisions from the March 19 rule already allow renewal
requests at any time. Technically, each new submission is a new
exclusion request, but an applicant may, as an additional supporting
document in a letter of explanation, reference a previous approval
whether that is still valid or not. Individuals and companies will need
to file a new exclusion request before the expiration of any granted
exclusions to avoid any interruptions in their tariff relief. A copy of
the previous approval is not needed, simply referring to the previous
regulations.gov approval number in the new application is sufficient.
The existing approved exclusion would not be amended, but may assist
the Department in reviewing a new exclusion request. Each approved
exclusion is limited to a set time period because there will be
changing domestic production capabilities and product availability as
U.S. steel and aluminum manufacturers increase production. Each
exclusion request is reviewed on its own merit and on a case-by-case
basis, so the existence of a previous exclusion approval is not a
guarantee a new exclusion request will be approved. As a time saving
tip, requesters may reuse the original form submission and just update
the fields that need to be updated by downloading the form, making any
needed updates, and then submitting the updated form in regulations.gov
as a new submission.
    Comment (f)(15)(ii): Renewal process should be simple, streamlined
and burden placed on U.S. steel and aluminum manufacturers to make the
case if circumstances have changed in terms of their capacity.
Commenters were concerned about the lack of information provided on how
the Department plans to review granted exclusions at the conclusion of
their one-year approval period. They asserted that lack of information
about the process injects a huge amount of uncertainty into supplier
agreements, which typically extend well beyond one year. These
commenters requested that additional information on the process for
requesting renewal of an exclusion be provided and that such process be
clearly explained and not overly burdensome. Commenters recommended
that the Department require the domestic producers to provide evidence
that the circumstances leading to the grant of the original exclusion
order have changed. Several commenters recommended that the Department
amend the supplements added in the March 19 rule such that, if no facts
or circumstances regarding the original exclusion request have changed,
a filing company would not be required to file a completely new
exclusion request to retain the benefit of a request that has already
been approved.
    BIS response: The Department believes the renewal process outlined
in the response to Comment (f)(15)(i) appropriately complies with the
Proclamations and balances the competing interests.

Comments on the Exclusion Form

    Comment (g)(1): Provide more guidance on using regulations.gov. A
commenter requested BIS provide direction on the steps needed to use
regulations.gov to submit an exclusion request. This commenter was
having difficulty determining which link or button in regulations.gov
it needed to use to submit the exclusion application submission itself.
    BIS response: The Department agrees that providing guidance on the
use of regulations.gov is needed and has already taken steps to address
this issue. As described above, the Department has posted step-by-step
guidance documents and various helpful tips on regulations.gov under
the two docket numbers, as well as on the Commerce website, to assist
the public's understanding and to reduce the burden in getting used to
using regulatons.gov. Today's rule also, as described below, adds an
Annex 1 to Supplements No. 1 and 2 to Part 705, which will assist the
public in using www.regulations.gov for application issues specific to
submissions under the exclusion, objection, rebuttal, surrebuttal
process. As with any new process, there has been a learning curve for
the public using regulations.gov, and this will continue to a lesser
degree with the rebuttals and surrebuttals today's rule is adding. The
Department has significantly increased the number of people working on
exclusion requests and objections, including adding many new people who
previously had not used regulations.gov, so we understand that it takes
some time to get familiar with the system. The Department has also
found for itself, as well as members of the public that we have spoken
to on the phone regarding using regulations.gov, that the comfort level
is increasing, and we anticipate this will continue.
    Comment (g)(2): Ensure exclusion and objection criteria are limited
to that covered by the Proclamation. A commenter was concerned whether
the exclusion form was introducing criteria that was not consistent
with the Proclamations. The commenter asserted that the Proclamation is
clear that if a steel article is not produced in the United States in a
sufficient and reasonably available amount or of satisfactory quality,
the Department should grant an exclusion. However, the exclusion
request form contains many fields beyond those factors. The commenter
recommended that the Department make it clear that it will not be
considering if ``substitute products'' are available, nor the ability
of CBP to easily distinguish the product when making its decision as to
whether an exclusion is approved.
    BIS response: The Department does not agree that information being
requested on the forms is inconsistent with the criteria included in
the Proclamations and the supplements added in the March 19 rule. The
information being requested is needed by the Department to make a
determination whether one of the three criteria identified in the
Proclamations can be met. As described above, today's rule is making
various changes to clarify these types of issues and to add greater
transparency to the process. The changes being made in today's rule
will give the public a better understanding of the criteria that the
Department is using to review exclusion requests, objections, and
rebuttals and surrebuttals being added with today's rule. Today's rule
also clarifies the references to CBP and how they fit into the process
to ensure that what is being approved is implementable. Providing false
information to CBP in the form or providing a HTSUS statistical
reporting number that is not correct may result in other import or
export clearance related penalties from the U.S. Government, so

ensuring that an individual or organization that submitted an exclusion
request used the correct HTSUS statistical reporting number will ensure
an approved exclusion is implementable, as well as being consistent
with other U.S. regulations.
    Comment (g)(3): Concern over the use of ranges on the forms.
Commenters raised concern that the form has caused confusion in the
industry due to the seemingly contradictory language wherein field 2.j.
notes that ``Ranges . . . are allowed,'' but field 3.b. prohibits ``a
range of products and or sizes.'' These commenters believe these
inconsistencies have added additional uncertainty to an already opaque
process, with requesters unsure if and when ranges are permissible.
Therefore, these commenters recommended that the Department clarify
what it means regarding permissible use of ranges and do so with
specific examples, including illustrative examples demonstrating the
outer bounds of any impermissible range for each such physical
dimension (e.g., width range generally may not exceed 100 mm; thickness
range may not exceed 50 mm).
    BIS response: The Department designed both the steel and aluminum
exclusion/objection forms with input from a variety of U.S. Government
experts and industry association material experts. The goal was to
create a balance of information requested from the exclusion filer to
allow a U.S. manufacturer of steel or aluminum to file a credible
objection to that specific exclusion. The forms allow for a product
that may be within a range but not products across a wide range. A
permissible range must be within the minimum and maximum range that is
specified in the tariff provision and applicable legal notes for the
provision. As referenced above, today's rule is adding two sentences to
paragraph (c)(2) to clarify these types of issues.

Comments on the Objection Form

    Comment (h)(1): Rule and the objection form are not in sync for who
may submit an objection because of certain questions on the objection
form. A commenter asserted the March 19 rule indicates that ``any
individual or organization in the United States may file objections to
steel exclusion requests.'' However, the commenter asserted that the
Response Form for Objections to Posted Section 232 Exclusion Requests--
Steel (the Response Form) is structured to accept only the information
of a single company, which would not appear to provide an opportunity
for a joint submission by an ad hoc association of companies in
opposition to a request, even if the association included the specific
data requested for evaluating the objection. The commenter believes the
submission of a single objection representing the views of a range of
steel producing companies is a far more efficient way for the
Department to receive comments in opposition to an exclusion request.
    BIS response: The Department agrees that there is an inconsistency
between the objection form and the supplements added in the May 19
rule. In order to address this inconsistency, today's rule is revising
paragraph (d) in both supplements to clarify that the individuals and
organizations in the U.S. that may submit objections are limited to
those using aluminum or steel in business activities (e.g.,
construction, manufacturing, or supplying steel or aluminum products to
users). The purpose of the objection process (as well as the
surrebuttal process being adding in today's rule) is to determine
whether an exclusion should be approved or denied, so the objector
needs to be able to provide information relevant to the fields
identified on the form. The Department needs the information identified
in those fields to fairly and consistently make determinations on the
disposition of exclusion requests when objections are submitted, as
well as rebuttals and surrebuttals being added to the process with the
publication of today's rule. The need for efficiency requires that
objectors be able to address all of the applicable fields on the
objection form in order to submit a credible objection that may warrant
the Department's denying an exclusion request. Today's rule addresses
this inconsistency by revising paragraph (d)(1) to clarify who may
submit an objection to a submitted exclusion request.
    Comment (h)(2): Specific fields on the objection form that would
appear to prevent certain parties from being able to submit objections.
Question 2b on the objection form asks respondents to ``discuss the
suitability of your organization's steel products'' and question 3 asks
``what percentage of the total steel product tonnage requirement
covered under the exclusion request . . . can your organization
manufacture?'' These questions appear to create a bias against
opposition comments from organizations that are not actual producers of
steel product, given that the March 19 rule indicates that objections
that do not include the information requested on the objection form
``will not be considered.''
    BIS response: The Department disagrees that there is any bias in
the process, but this commenter, similar to commenter (h)(1) above, did
highlight an inconsistency that needs to be addressed between the
objection form and the two supplements added in the March 19 rule. As
described in the BIS response to comment (h)(1) above, today's rule is
making changes to address this inconsistency between the objection form
and the two supplements added in the March 19 rule by revising
paragraph (d)(1).
    Comment (h)(3): Consolidated objections from industry would allow
for better analysis by the Department and reduce burden on industry and
the Department. A commenter asserted that for particularly large volume
exclusion requests, one domestic steel manufacturer may not have the
entire unutilized capacity to meet the needs that form the basis of
that exclusion request. However, the domestic industry may very well
have capacity in the aggregate to meet such orders. Absent permitting a
single combined submission by members of the domestic industry that can
provide aggregate data for the Department to review, the Department
would need to collect that information from each of the members,
expending unnecessary time and resources and increasing the risk that
complete information will not be available to consider. Thus, at the
very least, the commenter requested that the Department revise the
supplements added in the March 19 rule and objection form to provide
for joint submissions of ad hoc associations of companies to oppose
``insufficient volume''-based exclusion requests.
    BIS response: The Department does not agree. The Department is
relying on the product expertise of ITA, as well as the information
that the Department is receiving through the exclusion requests and
objections, which will be enhanced further with the rebuttal and
surrebuttal process being added by today's rule. Because of the
significant amount of exclusion request and objection activity the
Department has been managing since March 19, the information that the
Department has on the U.S. market for steel and aluminum production and
its gaps (both in supply and quality) is deepening quickly. The
Department is the party that will identify when broader based
exclusions may be warranted for approval after consideration and
approval by the Secretary. The Department acknowledges that this
process may not be the most efficient for approving these types of
broader exclusions, but it will ensure that any approved exclusions do
not undermine the larger objectives of

the tariffs and the need to protect critical U.S. national security
interests.

Suggestions for Examples of Broad Based Product Exclusions That Could
Be Implemented

    A number of commenters representing a wide range of industries
submitted their initial suggestions for what should be included in
broad based product exclusions. These requests for broad based product
exclusions included primary aluminum and fabricated can sheet, aluminum
foil, Grain Oriented Electric Steel (``GOES''), tinplate and tin free
steel, specialty chrome products used in deepwater oil and gas wells,
products used across the entire crude oil and natural gas production
industry, and certain steel and aluminum products that are critical to
motor vehicle parts manufacturers. At this time, the Department does
not believe it is warranted to add a broad based product exclusion for
any of the examples provided in the comments received on the March 19
rule. This does not preclude the Department from reevaluating this
determination once additional exclusion requests are submitted and
additional information provided to the Department in the objection,
rebuttal, and surrebuttal processes is evaluated further and patterns
begin to develop that may warrant granting broad product based
exclusions for some or all of these referenced items. The intent of the
March 19 rule was for the Department to identify these candidates for
broad product exclusions over time based on experience with reviewing
and approving exclusion requests submitted by individuals or companies.
This is the reason why the March 19 rule did not have any provisions
that described how individuals or organization could request broad
based product exclusion requests. The Department believes this is the
correct approach and is continuing this same regulatory framework in
today's rule.

Process and Timing for Obtaining Tariff Refunds for Approved Exclusion
Requests

    Comment (j)(1): Clarify effective date for exclusions. Commenters
were concerned that the slowness of the process may nullify exclusions
for many interested parties. A commenter was concerned that exclusions
(once granted) appear to apply only to imports of a specific product
arriving after the request was posted for public comment. This means
merchandise imported prior to the posting of the request will not
receive the benefits of the exclusion, even if the exclusion is
ultimately granted. The commenter is concerned that this creates huge
disadvantages for those seeking and obtaining exclusions because any
merchandise on the water (or about to be shipped) remains subject to
potential duties until the forms are posted, regardless of eligibility
for exclusion.
    BIS response: The date for applying duty refunds is established in
the Proclamations as amended.
    Comment (j)(2): Clarify who pays and the process for obtaining
refunds for tariffs paid before exclusion granted? Commenters were
concerned about the lack of information on the process for obtaining
refunds for tariffs once an exclusion request is approved. Commenters
asserted that the supplements are silent on the issue of whether a
company that successfully obtains a product exclusion may obtain a
refund of duties paid on such products already entered through U.S.
customs procedures. Commenters recommended that the rule should be
amended to describe this refund process in detail.
    BIS response: The Department clarifies here that if an exclusion is
granted, the party would then work with CBP on the refund mechanism.
CBP has provided public guidance on the process for requesting refunds
in CBP's Cargo Systems Messaging Service message #18-000378 available
at https://csms.cbp.gov/viewmssg.asp?Recid=23577&page=&srch_argv=232&srchtype=&btype=&sortby=&sby=.

Comments Dealing With CBP Enforcement and Implementation of Product
Based Exclusions and Country Based Exclusions

    Comment (k)(1): Concerns with CBP implementation and enforcement of
exclusions. A commenter raised concerns that the detailed and
individualized nature of the exclusion requests (i.e., product
specificity and supply chain specificity) virtually ensures that
compliance and enforcement will be complicated. A commenter requested
that the Department clarify the following details to facilitate
enforcement by CBP:
    Amendments to Entry Forms: The commenter argued that the Department
should recommend changes to CBP entry forms to allow easier
enforcement. Such changes might include creation of a separate line
item on the 7501 form to declare such duties, similar to the way CBP
enforces the collection of antidumping and countervailing duties.
    Entry Documentation: The commenter suggested that the Department
specify the documents required to be produced at entry by each party in
the supply chain to create predictability and to help simplify the
process for importing excluded merchandise without delay or duties,
e.g., mill test certificates, origin certificates, and export licenses.
    A commenter requested that the Department clarify how it will
instruct and assist CBP in enforcing and administering exclusion
requests, including whether it will adopt any type of import licensing
system.
    A commenter requested that the Department address how it will
enforce and administer product exclusions simultaneously with country
exemptions, particularly given the current temporary nature of some of
the country exemptions. A country exemption establishes a quantitative
limit for steel or aluminum that may be imported from a specific
country, but once the quantitative limitation is reached no additional
quantity of that steel or aluminum may be imported from that country.
Commenters assert they are concerned about the quantitative limitations
because if the supply of steel or aluminum is needed from such a
country once the quantitative limitation is reached, there will be no
alternative supply. For countries not subject to quantitative
limitations an unlimited amount of steel or aluminum may be imported,
but if not subject to a product exclusion, would be required to pay the
applicable tariff of 25 percent for steel and 10% for aluminum. The
commenter requested that if country exemptions are tied to quotas
(referred to henceforth as quantitative limitations) (or any other type
of import restriction), the Department work with the USTR and CBP to
develop a workable solution to simultaneously monitor and enforce
product exclusions, country exemptions, and any quantitative
limitations used to enforce country exemptions.
    BIS response: The Department has been working closely with CBP in
the development and implementation of the product exclusion process.
BIS will not issue a decision granting an exclusion until CBP confirms
that the exclusion is administrable, meaning the exclusion request
designates the correct HTSUS statistical reporting number. The
Department will provide CBP with information that will identify each
approved exclusion request, as described in the preceding paragraph.
Individuals or organizations whose exclusion requests are approved must
report information concerning any applicable exclusion to CBP.
    Comment (k)(2): Department should clarify that CBP's ability to
distinguish a steel product is not a criterion for granting an
exclusion request. One

commenter asserted that neither the Proclamations nor the March 19 rule
say anything about weighing the burden on the CBP to administer an
exclusion as being part of the criteria for whether to approve an
exclusion request. Therefore, this commenter requests the Department
not use this field on the exclusion form as the basis for rejecting a
request.
    BIS response: The Department does not agree. In order for critical
U.S. national security interests to be protected and to be consistent
with the Proclamations, the items included in an approved exclusion
must be able to be adequately identified by CBP to ensure importers are
not exceeding the scope of approvals. Also as referenced above on a
similar comment, importers are responsible for providing a correct
HTSUS statistical reporting number to CBP, so the Department's process
of ensuring the HTS number is correct also helps the importer to ensure
the information that they are otherwise required to provide to CBP is
correct. BIS will not issue a decision granting an exclusion until CBP
confirms that the exclusion is administrable. In cases where a request
is denied for HTSUS issues, companies are encouraged to work with CBP
to confirm the proper classifications and resubmit.

Country Based Exclusions Must Be Taken Into Account When Determining
U.S. Supply

    Comment (l)(1): Country based exclusions must also be taken into
account when determining U.S. supply. A commenter was concerned that
the March 19 rule and the exclusion request process and exclusion and
objection forms appear to place too much emphasis on the availability
of supply in the U.S. market. The fact that U.S. production cannot meet
100 percent of demand for a product should not itself be the basis for
a product-specific exclusion. This commenter recommended the proper
interpretation of short-supply should be that the product cannot be
produced at all in either the U.S. or one of the other exempted
countries.
    BIS response: The Department does not agree. The Proclamations
authorize the Secretary of Commerce to grant exclusions from the duties
only if the Secretary determines that the steel or aluminum article for
which the exclusion is requested is not produced in the United States
in a sufficient and reasonable available amount or of a satisfactory
quality or should be excluded based upon specific national security
considerations. As described in more detail below, today's rule is
adding paragraph (c)(6)(i)-(iii) to be responsive to these types of
comments.
    Comment (l)(2): Product exclusion requests must be coordinated with
country exemptions to prevent ``double-dipping.'' A commenter requested
in order to ensure that the tariffs serve their purpose of boosting
U.S. steel production, the Department and the USTR coordinate the
allocation of product-specific requests with any country-specific
exemptions and any applicable quantitative limitations to prevent
``double-dipping.''
    BIS response: The Department does not agree. The product based
exclusions process and the country exemptions process are separate
processes. The Department does not take into account approved country
exemptions when evaluating whether to approve an exclusion request.
Questions specific to country exemptions should be directed to USTR.
Today's rule does, however, add a new Note to paragraph (c)(2) to allow
for product exclusion requests for countries subject to quantitative
exclusions using the same criteria specified in the supplements added
in the March 19 rule and the Proclamations. The review criteria for
whether to grant exclusion requests from countries subject to
quantitative limitations does not take into account the current level
remaining of a quantitative limitation for a particular country, but
today's rule does, for consistency with the August 29, 2018,
Presidential Proclamation 9777 and the August 29, 2018, Presidential
Proclamation 9776, takes steps along with CBP to ensure that the
exclusions granted under the scope of paragraph (c) do not undermine
the purpose of the country based quantitative limitations.

Country Based Exemptions Must Not Be Taken Into Account When
Determining U.S. Supply

    Comment (n)(1): No way to guarantee foreign supply would be
available to a U.S. based user. A commenter asserted that the ability
to potentially source from a foreign country does not mean that a U.S.
manufacturer would be able to receive supplies from that foreign
country and that such a consideration serves no purpose with regard to
the goal of the Section 232 tariffs. Therefore, this commenter
recommends it should not be considered in this context.
    BIS response: The exclusion process is intended to be as narrowly
focused as possible to ensure the larger objective of the tariffs--to
protect critical U.S. national security--is achieved. The Proclamations
authorize the Secretary to grant exclusions from the duties only if the
Secretary determines the steel or aluminum article for which the
exclusion is requested is not produced in the United States in a
sufficient and reasonable available amount or of a satisfactory quality
or for specific national security considerations. As described above
and in more detail below, today's rule adds a Note to paragraph (c)(2)
that will be partially responsive to these types of comments.
    Comment (n)(2): Country exemptions have been fluid, so difficult to
include that in the product exclusion analysis. One commenter asserted
that the country exemptions are fluid or not finalized, with caveats
that the President ``will consider re-imposing the tariff'' or
``revisit this determination, as appropriate,'' which makes it
difficult to reliably include country exemptions as part of the
analysis for product based exclusions.
    BIS response: The product exclusion process operates independently
of country exemption discussions. Decisions about country exemptions
are made by the President, based on his assessment of the factors
described in his Proclamations. Under the authority granted by the
earlier Proclamations, an exclusion request only applies to aluminum or
steel imported from a country subject to a tariff. However, the
Proclamations 9777 and 9776 of August 29, 2018, allowed the Secretary
to grant exclusions from quantitative limitations as described in this
rule with the addition of Note to paragraph (c)(2). As noted above, the
Proclamation 9777 under clause 2 also created a separate process that
requires the Secretary to grant exclusions from quantitative
limitations. The Department cannot grant exclusion requests for
aluminum or steel products imported from a country subject to a
quantitative limitation, except as specified in the Note to paragraph
(c)(2) for purposes of today's rule, or under clause 2 of Proclamation
9777.
    Comment (n)(3): Product based exclusions should not be country
specific and should be available for countries with quantitative
limitations. A commenter requested the Department authorize all
companies granted product exclusions to import tariff-free from any
available market economy source country because the basis of the
exclusion request is that the U.S. company cannot source the product
domestically. While the exclusion request process, managed by the
Department, is separate from the country exemption process being
managed by the USTR, the commenter urged the Department and USTR to
coordinate and allow companies to apply for and be granted exclusion

requests or pay the tariffs on products that go beyond a country's
quantitative limitation.
    BIS response: As noted above, the exclusion request and objection
process operates independently of country exemption discussions.
Decisions about exemptions are made by the President, based on his
assessment of the factors described in his Proclamations. Under the
authority granted by the Proclamations, an exclusion request only
applies to aluminum or steel imported from a country subject to a
tariff. The Department cannot grant exclusion requests for aluminum or
steel products imported from a country subject to a quantitative
limitation, except as specified in the Note to paragraph (c)(2) (in
Supplements No. 1 and 2 for aluminum and steel).
    Comment (n)(4): Concerns that country quantitative limitations will
further restrict U.S. supply. A trade association commenter asserted
that it understands that the Department will not entertain exclusion
requests covering steel from South Korea subject to a filled
quantitative limitation and urges the Department to reverse this
policy. The commenter argues that the policy treats steel from
countries with exemptions, such as South Korea, less favorably than
those countries that have not been granted exemptions, such as Russia
and China. In this example, Russian and Chinese steel and aluminum
would be permitted to be imported into the U.S. with an exclusion or be
subject to tariffs. After the steel quantitative limitation for South
Korea is reached, however, companies would not be permitted to apply
for exclusions or pay tariffs on additional South Korean steel, and
steel shipments would have to be returned or destroyed. Another
commenter had concerns that since these are absolute quantitative
limitations, there is no opportunity for importers to pay the tariff
and import the product if the quantitative limitation is filled, which
constrains supply even further. These commenters requested the that
Department allow interested parties who are subjected to quantitative
limitations be able to use the Section 232 exclusion process to request
an exclusion from the quantitative limitations for ``short supply'' or
similar reasons regarding lack of domestic availability.
    BIS response: As noted above, the exclusion request and objection
process operates independently of country exemption discussions.
Decisions about exemptions are made by the President, based on his
assessment of the factors described in his Proclamations. Under the
authority granted by the Proclamations, an exclusion request only
applies to aluminum or steel imported from a country subject to a
tariff, except as specified in the Note to paragraph (c)(2)(in
Supplements No. 1 and 2 for steel and aluminum). Under today's rule,
the Department will be able to grant exclusion requests for aluminum or
steel products imported from a country subject to a quantitative
limitation under the conditions specified in the Note to paragraph
(c)(2) (in Supplements No. 1 and 2 for steel and aluminum).

Changes Made in This Interim Final Rule to the Exclusion and Objection
Process

    In order to improve the fairness, transparency and efficiency of
the exclusion and objection process, as well as add a rebuttal and
surrebuttal process, BIS, on behalf of the Secretary, is publishing
today's interim final rule to make a number of changes to improve the
process. These changes are responsive to the comments received on the
March 19 rule and should improve the process significantly. Because the
two supplements are nearly identical, with the same paragraph structure
and regulatory provisions, this interim final rule makes the same
changes to both Supplement No. 1 and No. 2 to Part 705. The only places
where the regulatory changes made in this rule differ slightly is in
the application examples that are specific to steel or aluminum and the
samples of naming conventions for submissions in regulations.gov that
use the respective docket numbers in the examples (BIS-2018-0006
(steel) and BIS-2018-0002 (aluminum)).
    Today's rule makes conforming edits throughout the two supplements
to add references to the new rebuttal and surrebuttal process that
today's rule is adding. The new rebuttal process is described below
under paragraph (f). The new surrebuttal process is described below
under paragraph (g). Except for the changes to new paragraphs (f) and
(g), the additional references to rebuttal and surrebuttal are being
added when the process is being referenced as a whole in the two
supplements--meaning whenever the terms ``exclusion request'' and
``objection'' are used to describe the process. References to these two
terms will, after the publication of today's rule, encompass exclusion
requests, objections, rebuttals and surrebuttals.
    It is important to understand that the Department is committed to
having as fair, transparent and efficient a process as possible for
managing product exclusion requests. As asserted above by the
commenters and confirmed by the experience of the Department, the
number of submissions for exclusion requests and objections have far
exceeded original expectations, and the Department is taking steps in
this rule to improve the efficiency of adjudicating those requests. In
addition, the Department is making changes to improve the fairness of
the process by allowing the individual or organization that submitted
an exclusion request or an objection to have an opportunity to respond
to information provided by the other party, leading to better and more
informed decisions on exclusion requests.
    In paragraph (b)(5)(Public disclosure), today's rule is making
explicit the procedures for protecting and submitting confidential
business information. Changes to paragraph (b)(5) will result in
additional submissions by email that the Department will need to review
and address, but the overall benefit of creating a more transparent
process outweighs any possible reduction in the overall efficiencies of
the overall process. This rule revises the paragraph (b)(5) heading to
add the phrase ``and information protected from public disclosure,''
splits paragraph (b)(5) into new paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (ii), and
adds a new paragraph (b)(5)(iii). Paragraph (b)(5)(i) specifies that,
except for the information described in the new paragraph (b)(5)(iii),
individuals and organizations must otherwise fully complete the
relevant forms. Paragraph (b)(5) as added in the March 19 rule already
included this requirement, but based on the comments received, there
was some confusion about whether all fields needed to be completed on
the exclusion and objection forms and whether that requirement changed
if the submission included confidential business information. Today's
rule is addressing those issues and will state clearly in the
regulatory text that all fields have to be completed.
    New paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(Information not subject to public
disclosure should not be submitted) contains provisions to explain
clearly what information should not be included on the forms, or in the
information provided in rebuttals and surrebuttals, because these
submissions and documents will be made publicly available on
regulations.gov. The revisions made to paragraph (b)(5)(ii) include
adding a cross reference to new paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(Procedures for
identifying, but not disclosing confidential or propriety business
information (CBI) in the public version, and procedures for submitting
confidential business information). Paragraph (b)(5)(iii) describes in
detail

how to submit confidential business information as a separate email
submission to the Department that would not be disclosed to the public,
but would still inform the Department's review process of exclusion
requests, objections, rebuttals, and surrebuttals. These new
requirements include specifying that an individual or organization
filing a submission that contains information for which CBI treatment
is claimed must file a public version of the submission and then follow
on the same day the public version was submitted, the requirements in
paragraph (b)(5)(iii). These requirements include specifying how the
information that will be submitted separately by email as confidential
business information will be summarized in a public version. New
paragraph (b)(5)(iii) includes timelines for the separate email
submission of confidential business information in relation to the
public submission. The new paragraph (b)(5)(iii) also specifies that
submissions that contain confidential business information that is not
for public release must follow the procedures in paragraphs
(b)(5)(iii)(A)-(C). The requirements in these paragraphs for email
submission assist the Department in identifying these submissions to
allow the Department to properly associate these email submissions with
the respective 232 submissions posted in regulations.gov. Today's rule
adds a limitation in new paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(C) to specify the
confidential business information is limited to a maximum of 5 pages
per rebuttal or surrebuttal.
    In paragraph (c)(2)(Identification of exclusion requests), today's
rule adds two sentences to clarify certain aspects of the forms and the
two supplements that caused confusion for several commenters on whether
ranges or multiple dimensions were permissible. The first new sentence
specifies that the exclusion request forms allow for minimum and
maximum dimensions. The second new sentence specifies that ranges are
acceptable if the manufacturing process permits small tolerances. A
permissible range must be within the minimum and maximum range that is
specified in the tariff provision and applicable legal notes for the
provision. When additional context or explanation is needed on these
types of issues, the Department encourages submitters--both requesters
and objectors--to provide additional explanation as warranted.
    Today's rule also adds a new Note to paragraph (c)(2) to describe
the process for how an individual or organization may submit an
exclusion request for importing steel or aluminum from a country that
has a country exemption. The exclusion form has been revised to include
one additional field for these types of exclusion requests. In
requesting one of these types of exclusions, the requester will select
the field on the exclusion request form to indicate that the exclusion
request is for importing from a country eligible for a country
exemption. This is important to assist the Department in identifying
these types of exclusion requests, assisting the Department in
coordinating its review with other parts of the U.S. Government as
warranted, and when coordinating with CBP on the implementation of
these product based exclusions from countries subject to quantitative
limitations. Today's rule also adds examples of the types of
information that a requester is required to include in support of these
types of exclusion requests.
    In paragraph (c)(Exclusion requests), today's rule is adding a new
paragraph (c)(6)(Criteria used to review exclusion requests). As
described above, several commenters on the May 19 rule had concerns
regarding whether the Department was managing the process in a fair and
transparent manner. Several commenters said that because of the lack of
specificity surrounding the three criteria included in the
Proclamations and used in the supplements and exclusion request and
objection forms, it was difficult for the public to judge whether the
process was being conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Today's
rule adds new paragraph (c)(6) to specify in much greater detail the
criteria the Department is using to review the exclusion requests.
These additions to the two supplements will be responsive to the
various comments the Department received on the May 19 rule. The
introductory text of paragraph (c)(6) specifies that the Department, as
has been the case since the March 19 rule was published, will review
each exclusion request in a fair and transparent manner to determine
whether an article described in an exclusion request meets any of the
three criteria included in the Proclamations. Specifically, whether the
article is not produced in the United States in a sufficient and
reasonably available amount, is not produced in the United States in a
satisfactory quality, or for specific national security considerations.
New paragraphs (c)(6)(i)-(iii) provide more information on the criteria
used to review requests, including by defining keys terms used in the
review criteria and adding illustrative application examples of the
criteria to enhance understanding in new paragraph (c)(6)(i)(Not
produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available
amount), paragraph (c)(6)(ii)(Not produced in the United States in a
satisfactory quality), and paragraph (c)(6)(iii)(For specific national
security considerations).
    In paragraph (d)(Objections to submitted exclusion requests),
today's rule makes two changes, the first by revising paragraph (d)(1)
to narrow the scope of the phrase ``any individual or organization in
the United States'' to also require that these individuals or
organizations must be using steel or aluminum in business activities
(e.g., construction, manufacturing, or supplying steel product or
aluminum product to users) to file objections to steel or aluminum
exclusion requests. The Department views this change as a clarification
to the two supplements added in the March 19 rule to better align the
regulatory text with the text and intent of the Proclamations and the
objection forms. Commenters on the March 19 rule correctly asserted
that there was an inconsistency in the supplements that appeared to
allow for any individual or organization in the United States to file
objections to steel or aluminum exclusion requests where the objection
form itself required answering a series of questions that could only
reasonably be completed by an individual or organization in the United
States that manufactures steel or aluminum articles. As asserted by the
commenters, this inconsistency in the text created confusion for the
submitters on who may be eligible to submit an objection. Taking into
account the intended purpose of an objection (i.e., identifying whether
the criteria described above being added to new paragraph (c)(6)(i) and
(ii) are met), the Department has determined that the most appropriate
way to resolve the inconsistency between the supplements and the forms
is to revise the regulatory text to more closely align with the
objection form. As described above, this is an example where the
revisions made to the two supplements differ to make each revision
specific to the supplement--meaning that steel is referenced in the
revision to Supplement No. 1 to part 705 and aluminum is referenced in
the revisions to Supplement No. 2 to part 705. The Department also is
making this change to improve the fairness of the exclusion request and
objection process. Commenters correctly asserted that in the March 19
rule the criteria for who may submit an exclusion request under

paragraph (c) was more restrictive than who may submit an objection.
Commenters thought that difference was not treating parties
consistently or fairly. The changes being made to paragraph (d)(1) in
today's rule will resolve that issue.
    Secondly, in paragraph (d)(4)(Substance of objections to submitted
exclusion requests), today's rule is making changes to make the
criteria the Department uses to review objections to submitted
exclusion requests clearer and more transparent. Similar to the
addition of new paragraph (c)(6) described above, today's rule is
better defining the criteria, including the key term ``immediately.''
These revisions to paragraph (d)(4) will also better align the
regulatory text with the text used in the objection form. These changes
will improve the transparency of the review process, and reduce the
burden on all parties involved in the exclusion request, objection,
rebuttal, and surrebuttal process. Many comments from individuals or
organizations that submit exclusion requests requested that objectors
be required to be more specific about timelines and disclosing any
potential hurdles that may limit their ability to truly start producing
the needed steel or aluminum to which they are objecting. Commenters
were concerned about objection forms that seem to broadly assert that
an objector could conceivably make a steel or aluminum item, but do not
provide much specificity on how they would meet the target to start
producing the steel or aluminum. The Department agreed with these
commenters that adding greater specificity in the requirements for
objections would aid both objectors to more easily understand what
information would be helpful to include in an objection and requesters
in understanding when a legitimate objection is filed that would
warrant denying their exclusion request or at least warrant the
submission of a rebuttal. Today's rule makes those changes to paragraph
(d)(4). As described above, the exclusion request, objection, rebuttal,
and surrebuttal process has the potential to be adversarial in nature,
so the Department believes it important to establish clear criteria to
allow all parties to better understand the facts at hand.
    In paragraph (e)(Limitations on the size of submissions) today's
rule makes two conforming changes. First, today's rule excludes any CBI
that is submitted from the 25 page exclusion and objection limit. As
described above regarding paragraph (b)(5), submission made under
(b)(5)(iii) will be a separate email submission to the Department. The
page limit for confidential business information is limited to a
maximum of 5 pages pursuant to paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(B). Therefore, the
25 page limitation does not apply for CBI included in the original
submission of an exclusion or objection, or for a rebuttal or a
surrebuttal as described below regarding new paragraphs (f) and (g).
The page limit for rebuttals and surrebuttals is limited to a maximum
of 10 pages pursuant to new paragraphs (f)(2) and (g)(2). Because the
maximum size that may be submitted is less than 10 MB, today's rule is
including a maximum 10 MB file size requirement to paragraph (e). The
Department of Commerce has included this in our step-by-step guides and
quick tips for submissions that are posted in regulations.gov. User
manual for regulations.gov also make reference to this file size
limitation, so adding this less than 10 MB file size limitation to the
two supplements should reduce the number of occasions where the
submission exceeds the limitation and the submitter has to follow up
with the BIS support telephone number or email, or has to call to the
regulations.gov support telephone number. This type of confusion wastes
the time of the submitter, as well as the United States Government, so
adding this to paragraph (e) should likely help reduce this problem.
    Today's rule redesignates paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs (h)
and (i), respectively, to account for adding a new paragraph (f) for
the rebuttal process and a new paragraph (g) for the surrebuttal
process.
    Paragraph (f)(Rebuttal process) is being added as a new paragraph
to both supplements. Paragraph (f) creates a rebuttal process to allow
only individuals or organizations that have submitted an exclusion
request pursuant to one of the two supplements to submit a rebuttal to
any objection(s) posted to their exclusion request in regulations.gov.
Many commenters requested the Department make this type of a change to
ensure that the process was fair and the Department had all of the
relevant information when an objector made an objection to an exclusion
request. The formal objection process in paragraph (d) that was
included in the March 19 rule already established a process for
objections to exclusions, but commenters expressed strongly that
fairness required providing parties that submitted an exclusion request
with a transparent opportunity to formally respond, in particular if
they disagreed with some or all of the representations being made by an
objector.
    Paragraph (f)(1)(Identification of rebuttals) describes the process
for submitting a rebuttal in regulations.gov. Paragraph (f)(1)
specifies that when submitting a rebuttal, the individual or
organization that submitted the exclusion request would submit a
comment on the submitted objection to the submitted exclusion request
in regulations.gov. Paragraph (f)(1) also includes guidance on the
naming convention to use for rebuttals to ease the burden on the
Department in identifying rebuttals.
    Paragraph (f)(2)(Format and size limitations for rebuttals)
describes the format for submitting rebuttals. Paragraph (f)(2)
includes guidance on the same types of size limitations noted above to
ensure that submitters do not include an attachment as part of their
rebuttal that exceeds the size of 10 MB. Paragraph (f)(2) limits
rebuttals to a maximum of 10 pages inclusive of all exhibits and
attachments, but exclusive of the rebuttal form and any confidential
business information (CBI is limited to a maximum of 5 pages) provided
to the Department.
    Paragraph (f)(3) (Substance of rebuttals) provides the criteria
that a good rebuttal must address. First, rebuttals must address an
objection to the exclusion request made by the requester. If multiple
objections were received on a particular exclusion, the requester may
submit a rebuttal to each objector. Paragraph (f)(3) specifies that the
most effective rebuttals will be those that aim to correct factual
errors or misunderstandings in the objection(s). A good rebuttal should
assist the parties involved to come to a common understanding of the
facts at hand. Coming to a common understanding regarding the facts of
a particular exclusion or objection will better inform the Department's
review process. Although the rebuttal process will add an additional
step, it should lead to better and fairer outcomes for all parties
involved in the product exclusion request process.
    Paragraph (f)(4)(Time limit for submitting rebuttals) specifies the
timing for submitting rebuttals. The rebuttal period will begin on the
date the Department opens the rebuttal period, after posting the last
objection in regulations.gov, and will last for 7 days. There will be a
single rebuttal period that will apply for all objections received on
an exclusion request. The Department will open the 7 day rebuttal
period once the Department has posted all of the complete objections
received on an exclusion request. As described

below, the opening of the rebuttal comment period will be specified in
a daily list the Department will prepare that will be available on
www.commerce.gov/232. The 7 day period is intended to allow for the
individual or organization that submitted an exclusion request to
submit any written rebuttals that they believe are warranted. The
Department of Commerce will not notify the individual or organization
that submitted the exclusion request, other than posting the last
objection and opening the rebuttal comment period for 7 days. If you
submitted an exclusion request, after the objection comment period
closes for your exclusion request, you should search for all the
objections on the www.regulations.gov website using the tutorial
available on www.regulations.gov. Commerce will also prepare a daily
list available on www.commerce.gov/232 that will assist you with
determining whether an objection was filed for your product exclusion
request, that will supplement the information included in Annex 1 to
Supplements No. 1 and 2 and in regulations.gov. It will be the
responsibility of submitters of exclusion requests to monitor the
status in regulations.gov or on www.commerce.gov/232 to determine if
objections have been received and, if they believe it is warranted to
submit a rebuttal(s), to do that once the last objection received in
their exclusion request is posted by the Department following the
procedures specified in new paragraph (f) being added to both
supplements.
    Today's rule is also adding a Note to paragraph (f)(4) to add
grandfathering provisions to allow for exclusion requests already
posted, but not yet fully adjudicated, to be reopened to allow for
rebuttals, as well as surrebuttals, as described in Note to paragraph
(g)(4) below. The grandfathering provisions will be available for any
pending exclusion request that meets all three of the following
criteria included in the Note to paragraph (f)(4), as of September 11,
2018. In order to be eligible for grandfathering, the exclusion request
must meet the following: The exclusion request received an
objection(s), the 30 day objection review period has closed, and the
Department has not posted a final determination on the exclusion
request. The Note to paragraph (f)(4) specifies that the date of
reopening will start the review periods identified in paragraph (f)(4)
for those grandfathered exclusions. The Department will reopen the
requests on a rolling basis starting on the date of publication of
today's rule, and will seek to complete the reopening process on the
date that is seven days after the date of publication of today's rule,
on September 18, 2018, to serve as the start date for the review
periods identified in paragraph (f)(4) for those requests.
    Paragraph (g)(Surrebuttal process) is being added as a new
paragraph to both supplements. Paragraph (g) creates a surrebuttal
process to allow only individuals or organizations that have a posted
objection and had a rebuttal filed on their objection, to a submitted
exclusion request to be able to submit a surrebuttal to a rebuttal
posted to their objection in regulations.gov. The paragraph structure
of the rebuttal process and surrebuttal process are the same, and the
provisions of the two paragraphs have most elements in common. The
differences between paragraphs (f) and (g) are primarily the party in
the process that is responding (the party that submitted the exclusion
request for rebuttals, or the party that submitted the objection for
surrebuttals) and the timing of the rebuttal and surrebuttal that
occurs in a sequential order to allow each party sufficient review time
before submitting a rebuttal or surrebuttal.
    Many commenters requested the Department make this type of a change
to ensure that the process was fair and the Department had all of the
relevant information when an objection to an exclusion request received
a rebuttal. The commenters on the March 19 rule described conceptually
what they thought was needed to create a fair process for all parties
and these types of additional opportunities to provide input with a
rebuttal, followed by surrebuttal process, were recommended. The
Department agrees this would improve the process and is making these
changes with the addition of paragraph (g) described here and (f)
above. The formal objection process in paragraph (d) that was included
in the March 19 rule already established a process for objectors to
respond to exclusion requests in their objections. However, because
today's rule is adding a rebuttal process, for fairness it is also
adding a surrebuttal process for objectors. The detailed exclusion
request and objection forms help to establish an important baseline for
allowing the Department to evaluate exclusion requests and objections,
but the Department agrees that allowing the rebuttals and surrebuttals
described here will provide the Department with better information and
lead to better decisions even though it does add more time to the
overall process.
    Paragraph (g)(1)(Identification of surrebuttals) describes the
process for submitting a surrebuttal in regulations.gov. Paragraph
(g)(1) specifies that when submitting a surrebuttal, the individual or
organization that submitted the objection would submit a comment on the
rebuttal submitted on the objection to the exclusion request in
regulations.gov. Paragraph (g)(1) also includes guidance on the naming
convention to use for surrebuttals to ease the burden on the Department
in identifying surrebuttals.
    Paragraph (g)(2)(Format and size limitations for surrebuttals)
describes the format for submitting surrebuttals. Paragraph (g)(2) also
includes guidance on the same types of size limitations noted above to
ensure submitters do not include an attachment as part of their
surrebuttal that exceeds the size of 10 MB. Paragraph (g)(2) limits
surrebuttals to a maximum of 10 pages inclusive of all exhibits and
attachments, but exclusive of the surrebuttal form and any confidential
business information (CBI is limited to a maximum of 5 pages) provided
to the Department.
    Paragraph (g)(3)(Substance of surrebuttals) provides the criteria
that a good surrebuttal must address. First, surrebuttals must address
a rebuttal to the objection to the exclusion request made by the
submitter of the objection. Paragraph (g)(3) specifies that the most
effective surrebuttals will be those that aim to correct factual errors
or misunderstandings in the rebuttal to an objection. The surrebuttal
process, although it will add an additional step in the process, should
lead to better and fairer outcomes for all parties involved in the
product exclusion request process.
    Paragraph (g)(4)(Time limit for submitting surrebuttals) specifies
the timing for submitting surrebuttals. Paragraph (g)(4) specifies that
the surrebuttal period will begin on the date the Department opens the
surrebuttal period, after posting the last rebuttal to an objection to
an exclusion request in regulations.gov, and will last for 7 days. The
7 day period is intended to allow for the individual or organization
that submitted an objection and received a rebuttal to submit any
written surrebuttals that they believe are warranted. The Department of
Commerce will not notify the individual or organization that submitted
the objection request that received a rebuttal, other than posting the
rebuttal received for each objection and opening the surrebuttal
comment period for 7 days. If you submitted an objection to an
exclusion request, after the rebuttal

comment period closes on an exclusion request, you should search for
all the rebuttals on the www.regulations.gov website using the tutorial
available on www.regulations.gov. Commerce will also prepare a daily
list available on www.commerce.gov/232 that will assist you with
determining whether a rebuttal was filed on your objection. You must
have the exclusion request ID # (BIS-2018-000X-XXXXX) to locate
rebuttals to your objection. It will be the responsibility of
submitters of objections to monitor the status in regulations.gov or on
www.commerce.gov/232 to determine if their objection has received a
rebuttal and, if they believe it is warranted, to submit a surrebuttal
following the procedures specified in new paragraph (g) being added to
both supplements.
    In newly redesignated paragraph (h)(Disposition of 232
submissions), previously paragraph (f), today's rule is revising the
heading, along with making several other changes. In newly redesignated
paragraph (h)(1)(Disposition of incomplete submissions), today's rule
is adding new paragraphs (h)(1)(iii) for rebuttals and (h)(1)(iv) for
surrebuttals to specify that filings that do not satisfy the reporting
requirements specified in paragraph (f) for rebuttals or specified in
paragraph (g) for surrebuttals will not be considered.
    In newly redesignated paragraph (h)(2)(Disposition of complete
submissions), today's rule is revising the existing text, along with
adding new text to broaden the scope of this paragraph and provide more
specificity to make these provisions more transparent for the public.
These changes include designating some of the existing text as
paragraph (h)(2)(i)(Posting of responses), including adding a reference
to rebuttal and surrebuttal where needed.
    In new paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(Streamlined review process for ``No
Objection'' requests), today's rule makes a change to improve the
efficiency of the exclusion process. Under this streamlined review
process, the Department will grant properly filed exclusion requests
which meet the requisite criteria, receive no objections, and present
no national security concerns. After the 30-day comment period on
regulations.gov, BIS will work with CBP to ensure that the requester
provided an accurate HTSUS statistical reporting number. If the HTSUS
is correct, BIS will immediately assess the request to determine
whether it satisfies the criteria and for any national security
concerns (see paragraph (c)(6)(iii)(For specific national security
considerations) and if it satisfies the criteria and presents no
national security concerns, BIS will expeditiously post a decision on
regulations.gov granting the exclusion request. The Department has
already made this process change as an important step in helping to
resolve the initial backlog of the exclusion requests that were
received as of March 19. The Department believes going forward that
creating a streamlined review process for exclusion requests when no
objections are received will benefit those requesting exclusions and
the Department in more efficiently managing the exclusion, objection,
rebuttal, and surrebuttal process. The more efficient process being
added under paragraph (h)(2)(ii) will provide more time for the
Department to focus on exclusions where there are objections, and after
the publication of today's rule for exclusions and objections that also
include rebuttals and surrebuttals. As described above in the
discussion of adding a rebuttal and surrebuttal process, those new
submissions will increase the fairness and transparency of the process,
but will result in more overall submissions. The changes described in
new paragraph (h)(2)(ii) are an important efficiency improvement to the
overall process that the Department anticipates will help deserving
requesters receive exclusions in an expedited fashion when no objection
has been filed.
    In new paragraph (h)(2)(iii)(Effective date for approved exclusions
and date used for calculating duty refunds), today's rule is adding new
paragraphs (h)(2)(iii)(A) and (B). Paragraph (h)(2)(iii)(A)(Effective
date for approved exclusions) includes the original text from paragraph
(f) that was redesignated, and some minor conforming changes today's
rule makes to this paragraph. The date used for calculating tariff
refunds will be set by Proclamation, so today's rule does not make any
changes to paragraph (h)(2)(iii)(A) to address providing additional
guidance for calculating duty refunds. Commenters also requested more
guidance on and greater specificity in the supplements for what part of
the government should be contacted for obtaining refunds on the duties.
Today's rule adds new paragraph (h)(2)(iii)(B)(Contact for obtaining
tariffs refunds), to clarify that the Department is not involved with
providing duty refunds and to direct individuals and organizations with
approved exclusions to contact CBP for questions regarding obtaining
duty refunds.
    In new paragraph (h)(2)(iv)(Validity period for exclusion
requests), today's rule is moving the redesignated text from paragraph
(f) that stated that exclusions would generally be approved for one
year to new paragraph (h)(2)(iv) introductory text. The Department
emphasizes that the supplements added in the March 19 rule used the
term ``generally,'' so it was never the intent for the Department to
make all exclusions fit into a one year validity. Commenters questioned
whether one year was an arbitrary number, but as noted above the
Department believes that a general one year validity is appropriate for
purposes of the criteria included in the supplements and the purpose of
the Proclamations. However, because a large number of comments
requested more information on when the Department may grant a longer
validity or a shorter validity period, today's rule is adding text to
the introductory text of paragraph (h)(2)(iv) to make clearer for the
public the criteria that the Department, and other agencies as
warranted, will take into account when determining when a non-standard
validity period may be warranted. The Department also is adding
paragraphs (h)(2)(iv)(A)(Examples of what fact patterns may warrant a
longer exclusion validity period), (B)(Examples of what criteria may
warrant a shorter exclusion validity period), and (C) to make the
application of these criteria even more transparent through
illustrative examples under paragraphs (h)(2)(iv)(A) and (B). Today's
rule adds new paragraph (h)(2)(iv)(C) to qualify that the fact patterns
identified in paragraphs (h)(2)(iv)(A) or (B) will not be determinant
in themselves for determining the appropriate validity period, but
still encouraging submitters to reference this type of information when
warranted to justify a shorter or longer validity period.
    For example, if a company that requested an exclusion for one year
determines during the objection, rebuttal, and surrebuttal process that
a U.S. manufacturer may be able to make the product within nine months,
it may assist the company that requested the exclusion to have a
shorter nine month exclusion validity and make business plans to start
purchasing steel from the U.S. manufacturer. This would allow for
advanced business planning (a concern that was asserted by a number of
commenters as being important) for both the party with the granted
exclusion request and the objector, eliminate the need to apply for a
subsequent exclusion request that likely would be denied if the U.S.
manufacturer's production did come online at nine

months with suitable quality, and help improve the efficiency of the
system by reducing the number of new exclusions the Department would
need to review and allowing the Department to focus on other exclusion
requests.
    Under newly redesignated paragraph (h)(3)(Review period and
implementation of any needed conforming changes), today's rule revises
existing text and adds new text to make these provisions more
transparent for the public, in particular to address how BIS interacts
with CBP on determining whether to approve an exclusion request.
Commenters were confused whether the references to CBP in the
supplements and on the exclusion form in particular meant CBP's
approval was an additional criterion that needed to be met for an
exclusion request to be approved. It is not, but the comments
identified an area where adding greater specificity to the regulatory
provisions would improve the public's understanding of how the
Department interacts with CBP, in particular the important role CBP
plays in confirming the HTSUS statistical reporting number is correct,
which is a prerequisite in order for an exclusion request to
implementable at the border. New paragraph (h)(3)(i) (Review period)
specifies that the review period normally will not exceed 106 days,
increased from 90 days to account for the additional time added to the
review process for the rebuttal and surrebuttal process described above
being added to paragraphs (f) and (g). In addition, as a conforming
change for the addition of the streamlined ``No Objections'' process
described under paragraph (h)(2)(ii) described above, today's rule is
qualifying that the 106 days does not apply to that streamlined review
process for ``No Objection'' requests.
    New paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(Coordination with other agencies on
approval and implementation), adds existing text that references
coordination with other agencies of the U.S. Government, such as the
United States International Trade Commission (USITC) and CBP, to take
any additional steps needed to implement an approved exclusion request.
Because the USITC is not involved with the exclusion process, today's
rule removes it from the illustrative list of government agencies. To
add greater transparency on the type of coordination that is occurring
with CBP on exclusion requests, this rule adds a sentence to paragraph
(h)(3)(ii) to clarify that these additional steps in coordination with
CBP are needed to implement an approved exclusion request. The new
sentence clearly states that this coordination is not part of the
review criteria used by the Department to determine whether to approve
an exclusion request, but it does emphasize that this coordination is
an important component in ensuring the approved exclusion request can
be properly implemented--meaning the HTSUS statistical reporting number
provided by the requester is in fact correct.
    In newly redesignated paragraph (i)(For further information),
previously paragraph (g), today's rule is adding one sentence to
highlight some of the training sources that the Department has created
and posted on regulations.gov under the regulations.gov docket numbers
for steel and aluminum and on the BIS website. These include FAQs, best
practices other companies have used for submitting exclusion requests
and objections, and helpful checklists to improve understanding.
    Today's final rule adds a new Annex 1 to Supplements No. 1 and 2 to
Part 705. This Annex provides instructions on the steps to follow to
file (submit) rebuttal comments in www.regulations.gov. The Annex
includes five steps that will assist the public in using
www.regulations.gov for application issues that are specific to
submitting rebuttals under the product exclusion request process. The
www.regulations.gov website already includes various guidance on using
the website portal for submitting comments on publications, but the
guidance in the Annex will supplement that existing guidance with
information that is specific to the rebuttal process. For example, the
Annex provides guidance on how to identify whether an exclusion request
has received objections and information on how to see when the rebuttal
comment period opens in regulations.gov for an exclusion request that
received an objection, including an exclusion request that received
more than one objection. For the same reasons, the new Annex also
includes five steps to follow to file surrebuttal comments in
www.regulations.gov. Because of the additional complexity being added
to the process for using www.regulations.gov with the addition of
rebuttals and surrebuttals, the Department is adding these instructions
as part of an Annex to assist the pubic to better understand using
regulations.gov when submitting rebuttals and surrebuttals.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. The March 19 rule was determined to be a ``significant
regulatory action,'' although not economically significant, under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Today's rule has also been
determined to be to be a ``significant regulatory action,'' although
not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866. However, as stated under Section 4 of Presidential Proclamation
9704 and Section 4 of Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018, this rule is
exempt from Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017).
    2. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
(PRA) provides that an agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a
collection of information, and no person is required to respond to nor
be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of
information, unless that collection has obtained Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) approval and displays a currently valid OMB Control
Number.
    The Department requested and OMB authorized emergency processing of
two information collections involved in this rule, consistent with 5
CFR 1320.13. OMB approved these two information collections as
emergency collections on March 18, 2018. 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.
He further directed the Secretary to establish the process for
submitting and granting these requests for exclusions within 10 days,
and the publication of the March 19 interim final rule fulfilled that
directive. Based on the comments received in response to the comment
period for the interim final rule, however, the agency has determined
that changes need to be made to the March 19 rule to achieve the stated
obectives of the March 19 rule and the President's directive to
establish an

efficient exclusion process to ensure downstream users of steel and
aluminum in the United States were not unnecessarily hurt by the
tariffs that have been implemented on steel and aluminum. 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, and
based on the comments received on the March 19 rule also requires
adding a rebuttal and surrebuttal process. In the March 19 rule, the
Department determined the following conditions had been met:
    a. The collection of information was needed prior to the expiration
of time periods normally associated with a routine submission for
review under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act in view of
the President's Proclamations issued on March 8, 2018, for the
Presidential Proclamation on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United
States, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-adjusting-imports-steel-united-states/, and for the
Presidential Proclamation on Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the
United States, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-adjusting-imports-aluminum-united-states/.
    b. The collection of information was essential to the mission of
the Department, in particular to the adjudication of exclusion requests
and objections to exclusions requests and, with the publication of
today's interim final rule that makes revisions to the two supplements
added in the March 19 rule to the adjudication of rebuttals and
surrebuttals.
    c. The use of normal clearance procedures would have prevented the
collection of information of exclusion requests and objections to
exclusion requests, for national security purposes, as well as for
rebuttals and surrebuttals being added in today's rule, as discussed
under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 as amended and the
Presidential Proclamations issued on March 8, 2018.
    The Commerce Department provided a separate 60-day notice in the
Federal Register requesting public comment on the information
collections contained within the March 19 rule. This notice was
published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2018, 83 FR 19044 and
19045. The Commerce Department intends to provide separate 60-day
notice in the Federal Register requesting public comment on the two
revised and expanded information collections contained within today's
interim final rule.
    Agency: Commerce Department.
    Type of Information Collection: Revised and Expanded Collections.
    Title of the Collection [0694-0139]: Procedures for Submitting
Requests for Exclusions from the Remedies Instituted by the President
in the Presidential Proclamations 9705 and 9704 of March 8, 2018
Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States and Adjusting Imports
of Aluminum into the United States.

Revised Collection Estimates for Exclusion Request Filings Based on
Data Since March 19, 2018

    Affected Public: Private Sector--Businesses.
    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: [96,954].
    Average Responses per Year: [1].
    Total Estimated Number of Responses: [96,954].
    Average Time per Response: 4 hours.
    Total Annual Time Burden: [387,816].
    Type of Information Collection: [Revised Collection].
    Title of the Collection [0694-0138]: Objection Filing to Posted
Section 232 Exclusion Request: Steel; and Objection Filing to Posted
Section 232 Exclusion Request: Aluminum, respectively.

Revised Collection Estimates for Objection Filings Based on Data Since
March 19, 2018

    Affected Public: Private Sector--Businesses.
    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: [38,781].
    Average Responses per Year: [1].
    Total Estimated Number of Responses: [38,781].
    Average Time per Response: [4].
    Total Annual Time Burden: [155,124].
    Type of Information Collection: [Revised Collection].
    OMB Control Number: [0694-0138].
    In addition to the two collections referenced above for the March
19 rule, the Commerce Department requested, and OMB authorized,
emergency processing of an additional information collection involved
in today's rule, consistent with 5 CFR 1320.13. As was noted in the
report submitted by the Secretary to the President, steel and aluminum
are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under
such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of
the United States and therefore any delay in implementing these
remedial actions (as described Proclamations 9704 and 9705 of March 8,
2018) would further undermine U.S. national security interests. In
order to ensure that the remedial actions from the Presidential
Proclamations do not undermine users of these articles in the United
States that may need the foreign supply of these articles for
manufacturing other articles in the United States that are critical to
protecting the national security of the United States, or are otherwise
important to protecting the U.S. economy because there is not currently
a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory
quality of these articles in the United States, the Presidential
Proclamations authorized the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation
with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the United
States Trade Representative, and other agency heads as appropriate to
grant exclusions. This emergency collection is needed in order for
today's rule to establish the process for submitting rebuttals and
surrebuttals to help better inform the process of granting these
requests for exclusions. This action is needed immediately to protect
national security interests of the United States.
    If this emergency collection were delayed to allow for public
comment before becoming effective, individuals and organizations in the
United States would not have the opportunity to submit rebuttals and
surrebuttals during the comment period and during the finalization of
the collection, with the possible result of economic hardship for the
U.S. companies and an overall less effective exclusion process. BIS
intends to publish a notice in the Federal Register informing the
public that DOC submitted a request for an emergency collection and the
request was approved by OMB.
    The Department has determined the following conditions have been
met:
    a. The collection of information is needed prior to the expiration
of time period normally associated with a routine submission for review
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act in view of the
President's proclamations issued on March 8, 2018, for the Presidential
Proclamation on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-adjusting-imports-steel-united-states/, and for the
Presidential Proclamation on Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the
United States, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-adjusting-imports-aluminum-united-states/.

    b. The collection of information is essential to the mission of the
Department, in particular to the adjudication exclusion requests,
objections to exclusions requests, rebuttals and surrebuttals.
    c. The use of normal clearance procedures would prevent the
collection of information for rebuttals and surrebuttals and would make
the review of exclusion requests and objections to exclusion requests
less effective. Exclusion requests and objections to exclusions
requests are important for national security purposes, as discussed
under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 as amended and the
Presidential Proclamations issued on March 8, 2018.
    The Commerce Department intends to provide separate 60-day notice
in the Federal Register requesting public comment on the information
collections contained within this rule.
    Agency: Commerce Department.
    Type of Information Collection: New Collection.
    Title of the Collection 0694-0141: Procedures for Submitting
Rebuttals and Surrebuttals Requests for Exclusions from and Objections
to the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Steel
and Aluminum.

Submissions of Rebuttals (To Respond to Objections to Exclusions)

    Affected Public: Private Sector--Businesses.
    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: [34,902].
    Average Responses per Year: [1].
    Total Estimated Number of Responses: [34,902].
    Average Time per Response: 1 hours.
    Total Annual Time Burden: [34,902].
    Type of Information Collection: [New Collection].
    OMB Control Number: [0694-0141].

Submissions of Surrebuttals (To Respond to Rebuttals to Objections)

    Affected Public: Private Sector--Businesses.
    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: [27,921].
    Average Responses per Year: [1].
    Total Estimated Number of Responses: [27,921].
    Average Time per Response: 1 hours.
    Total Annual Time Burden: [27,921].
    Type of Information Collection: [New Collection].
    OMB Control Number: [0694-0141].
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for
public comment, and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because
this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the
United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). As explained in the reports
submitted by the Secretary to the President, steel and aluminum are
being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such
circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the
United States and therefore the President is implementing these
remedial actions (as described Proclamations 9704 and 9705 of March 8,
2018) to protect U.S. national security interests. That implementation
includes the creation of an effective process by which affected
domestic parties can obtain exclusion requests ``based upon specific
national security considerations.'' The Department started this process
with the publication of the March 19 rule and is continuing this
process with the publication of today's interim final rule. The
revisions to the exclusion request process are informed by the comments
received in response to the March 19 rule and the Department's
experience with managing the exclusion request and objection process.
Commenters were generally supportive and welcomed the idea of creating
an exclusion process, but most of the commenters believe the exclusion
process is not working well and needs to be significantly improved in
order for it to achieve the intended purpose. The commenters identified
a number of areas where transparency, effectiveness, and fairness of
the process could be improved. The Department 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
today's rule should make significant improvements in all three
respects, but because of the scope of this new process, BIS is
publishing today's rule as an interim final rule with request for
comments.
    In addition, the Department finds that there is good cause under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public
comment and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) 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 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. He further directed the Secretary to, within
10 days, issue procedures for submitting and granting these requests
for exclusions and this interim final rule fulfills that direction. As
described above, the Secretary complied with the directive from the
President with the publication of the March 19 rule and is taking the
next step in improving the exclusion and objection process by making
needed changes with the publication of today's rule, as well as adding
the needed rebuttal and surrebuttal process. 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. This publication of today's rule makes needed changes in the
objection process and adds a rebuttal and surrebuttal process to create
the type of fair, transparent, and efficient process that was intended
in the March 19 rule, but was found lacking by the commenters in
several key respects. Today's rule makes critical changes to ensure a
fair, transparent, and efficient exclusion process.
    If this interim final rule were delayed to allow for public comment
or for thirty days before companies in the U.S. were allowed to benefit
from the improvements made in the exclusion, objection, and newly added
rebuttal and surrebuttal process from the remedies instituted by the
President, those entities could face significant economic hardship that
could potentially create a detrimental effect on the general U.S.
economy. The comments received on

the March 19 rule were clear whether they were supportive of tariffs or
against tariffs, that an efficient exclusion request, objection, and
rebuttal and surrebuttal process was needed, that the March 19 rule had
not sufficiently created such a process; if specific improvements are
not made, dire economic consequences could occur. Commenters also
thought the inefficiencies of the process could undermine other
critical U.S. national security interests. Likewise, our national
security could be impacted if particular national security
considerations justify an exclusion, but the process for obtaining such
exclusion were delayed, or the Department lacked adequate information
to make a fair, transparent and efficient determination for all parties
involved and to ensure the critical national security considerations
are being protected.
    Finally, the 30 day delay in effectiveness for final rules is
inapplicable under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) because this rule relieves a
restriction.
    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.
    Pursuant to Proclamations 9704 and 9705 of March 8, 2018, the
establishment of procedures for an exclusion process under each
Proclamation shall be published in the Federal Register and are exempt
from Executive Order 13771.

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 705--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 705 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1862) and Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1979 (44 FR 69273,
December 3, 1979).

0
2. Revise Supplement No. 1 and Supplement No. 2 to Part 705 to read as
follows:

Supplement No. 1 to Part 705--Requirements for Submissions Requesting
Exclusions From the Remedies Instituted in Presidential Proclamation
9705 of March 8, 2018 Adjusting Imports of Steel Articles Into the
United States

    On March 8, 2018, the President issued Proclamation 9705
concurring with the findings of the January 11, 2018 report of the
Secretary of Commerce on the effects of imports of steel mill
articles (steel articles) identified in Proclamation 9705
(``steel'') on the national security and determining that adjusting
steel imports through the imposition of duties is necessary so that
imports of steel will no longer threaten to impair the national
security. Clause 3 of Proclamation 9705 also 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 from the duties at the request of
directly affected parties located in the United States if the steel
articles are determined not to be produced in the United States in a
sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory
quality or based upon specific national security considerations. On
August 29, 2018, the President issued Proclamation 9776. Clause 1 of
Proclamation 9776 authorized the Secretary of Commerce, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the United States Trade
Representative (USTR), the Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic
Policy, and such other senior Executive Branch officials as the
Secretary deems appropriate, to provide relief from the applicable
quantitative limitations set forth in Proclamation 9740 and
Proclamation 9759 and their accompanying annexes, as amended, at the
request of a directly affected party located in the United States
for any steel article determined by the Secretary to not be produced
in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount
or of a satisfactory quality. The Secretary is also authorized to
provide such relief based upon specific national security
considerations.
    (a) Scope. This supplement specifies the requirements and
process for how directly affected parties located in the United
States may submit requests for exclusions from the remedies
instituted by the President. This supplement also specifies the
requirements and process for how parties in the United States may
submit objections to submitted exclusion requests for relief from
the duties or quantitative limitations imposed by the President, and
rebuttals to submitted objections and surrebuttals (collectively,
``232 submissions''). This supplement identifies the time periods
for such submissions, the method of submission, and the information
that must be included in such submissions.
    (b) Required forms. The U.S. Department of Commerce has posted
four separate fillable forms on the BIS website at https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/232-steel and on the Federal rulemaking
portal (http://www.regulations.gov) that are to be used for
submitting exclusion requests, objections to exclusion requests,
rebuttals, and surrebuttals described in this supplement. On
regulations.gov, you can find these four forms for steel exclusion
requests, objections to exclusion requests, rebuttals to objections,
and surrebuttals by searching for its regulations.gov docket number,
which is BIS-2018-0006. The U.S. Department of Commerce requires
requesters and objectors to use the appropriate form as specified
under paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this supplement for submitting
exclusion requests and objections to submitted exclusion requests,
and the forms specified under paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) for
submitting rebuttals and surrebuttals.
    (1) Form required for submitting exclusion requests. The name of
the form used for submitting exclusion requests is Request for
Exclusion from Remedies: Section 232 National Security Investigation
of Steel Imports. The Title in www.regulations.gov is Exclusion
Request--Steel and is posted under ID # BIS-2018-0006-0002.
    (2) Form required for submitting objections to submitted
exclusion requests. The name of the form used for submitting
objections to submitted exclusion requests is Objection Filing to
Posted Section 232 Exclusion Request: Steel. The Title in
www.regulations.gov is Objection Filing--Steel and is posted under
ID # BIS-2018-0006-0003.
    (3) Form required for submitting rebuttals. The name of the form
used for submitting rebuttals to objections is Rebuttal to Objection
Received for Section 232 Exclusion Request: Steel. The Title in
www.regulations.gov is Rebuttal Filing--Steel and is posted under ID
# BIS-2018-0006-45144.
    (4) Form required for submitting surrebuttals. The name of the
form used for submitting surrebuttals to objections is Surrebuttal
to Rebuttal Received on Section 232 Objection: Steel. The Title in
www.regulations.gov is Surrebuttal Filing--Steel and is posted under
ID # BIS-2018-0006-45145.
    (5) Public disclosure and information protected from public
disclosure.
    (i) Information submitted in 232 submissions will be subject to
public review and made available for public inspection and copying,
except for the information described in paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of
this supplement. Individuals and organizations must fully complete
the relevant forms.
    (ii) Information not subject to public disclosure should not be
submitted. Personally identifiable information, including social
security numbers and employer identification numbers, should not be
provided. Information that is subject to government-imposed access
and dissemination or other specific national security controls,
e.g., classified information or information that has U.S. Government
restrictions on dissemination to non-U.S. citizens or other
categories of persons that would prohibit public disclosure of the

information, may not be included in 232 submissions. Individuals and
organizations that have confidential business information (``CBI'')
that they believe relevant to the Secretary's consideration of the
232 submission should so indicate in the appropriate field of the
relevant form, or on the rebuttal or surrebuttal submission,
following the procedures in paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this
supplement.
    (iii) Procedures for identifying, but not disclosing
confidential or proprietary business information (CBI) in the public
version, and procedures for submitting CBI. For persons seeking to
submit confidential or proprietary business information (CBI), the
232 submission available to the public must contain a summary of the
CBI in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the
substance of the information. If the submitting person claims that
summarization is not possible, the claim must be accompanied by a
full explanation of the reasons supporting that claim. Generally,
numerical data will be considered adequately summarized if grouped
or presented in terms of indices or figures within 10 percent of the
actual figure. If an individual portion of the numerical data is
voluminous (e.g., 5 pages of numerical data), at least one percent
of the numerical data, representative of that portion, must be
summarized. In order to submit CBI that is not for public release as
a separate email submission to the U.S. Department of Commerce, you
must follow the procedures in paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A)-(C) of this
supplement to assist the U.S. Department of Commerce in identifying
these submissions and associating these submissions with the
respective 232 submission posted in regulations.gov. Submitters with
classified information should contact the U.S. Department of
Commerce for instructions on the appropriate methods to send this
type of information. If you are submitting a rebuttal or a
surrebuttal, Annex 1 to Supplements No. 1 and 2 includes additional
guidance for submitting CBI.
    (A) On the same day that you submit your 232 submission in
www.regulations.gov, send an email to the U.S. Department of
Commerce. The email address used is different depending on the type
of submission the emailed CBI is for, as follows: CBI for rebuttals
use [email protected]; and CBI for surrebuttals use
[email protected].
    (B) The email subject line must only include the original
exclusion request ID # (BIS-2018-000X-XXXXX) and the body of the
email must include the 11-digit alphanumeric tracking number (XXX-
XXXX-XXXX) you received from regulations.gov when you successfully
submitted your rebuttal, or surrebuttal. This naming convention will
assist the U.S. Department of Commerce to associate the CBI, that
will not be posted in regulations.gov, with the information included
in the public submission.
    (C) Submit the CBI as an attachment to that email. The CBI is
limited to a maximum of 5 pages per rebuttal, or surrebuttal. The
email is to be limited to sending your CBI. All other information
for the public submission, and public versions of the CBI, where
appropriate, for a 232 submission must be submitted using
www.regulations.gov following the procedures identified in this
supplement.

    Note to Paragraph (b) for Submission of Supporting Documents
(Attachments): Supporting attachments must be emailed as PDF
documents.

    (c) Exclusion requests.
    (1) Who may submit an exclusion request? Only directly affected
individuals or organizations located in the United States may submit
an exclusion request. An individual or organization is ``directly
affected'' if they are using steel in business activities (e.g.,
construction, manufacturing, or supplying steel product to users) in
the United States.
    (2) Identification of exclusion requests. The file name of the
submission must include the submitter's name, date of submission,
and the 10-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) statistical reporting number. For example, if Company A is
submitting an exclusion request on June 1, 2018, the file should be
named as follows: ``Company A exclusion request of 6-1-18 for
7207200045 HTSUS.'' Separate exclusion requests must be submitted
for steel products with chemistry by percentage breakdown by weight,
metallurgical properties, surface quality (e.g., galvanized,
coated), and distinct critical dimensions (e.g., 0.25-inch rebar,
0.5-inch rebar, 0.5-inch sheet, or 0.75 sheet) covered by a common
HTSUS subheading. The exclusion request forms allow for minimum and
maximum dimensions. Ranges are acceptable if the manufacturing
process permits small tolerances. A permissible range must be within
the minimum and maximum range that is specified in the tariff
provision and applicable legal notes for the provision. Separate
exclusion requests must also be submitted for products falling in
more than one 10-digit HTSUS statistical reporting number. The U.S.
Department of Commerce will approve exclusions on a product basis,
and the approvals will be limited to the individual or organization
that submitted the specific exclusion request, unless Commerce
approves a broader application of the product-based exclusion
request to apply to additional importers. Other directly affected
individuals or organizations located in the United States that wish
to submit an exclusion request for a steel product that has already
been the subject of an approved exclusion request may submit an
exclusion request under this supplement. These additional exclusion
requests by other directly affected individuals or organizations in
the United States are not required to reference the previously
approved exclusion but are advised to do so, if they want Commerce
to take that into account when reviewing a subsequent exclusion
request. Directly affected individuals and organizations in the
United States will not be precluded from submitting a request for
exclusion of a product even though an exclusion request submitted
for that product by another requester or that requester was denied
or is no longer valid.

    Note to Paragraph (c)(2): For directly affected individuals or
organizations located in the United States seeking exclusions from
quantitative limitations imposed on certain countries, the requester
must select the field on the exclusion form to indicate that the
exclusion request is for importing from a country subject to a
quantitative limitation. In addition to selecting this field on the
exclusion request form, a requester must provide information that it
believes supports allowing the requester to import steel that may
otherwise exceed the quantitative limitation for this country. For
example, the requester may indicate it believes the steel identified
in the exclusion request is not available from any U.S. suppliers,
and indicate that the quantitative limitation has been exceeded or
will likely soon be exceeded leading to this individual or
organization not being able to import or otherwise obtain (from any
other country) the needed steel. Providing information as part of
the exclusion requests that supports these types of statements is
required for the U.S. Department of Commerce to consider these types
of exclusion requests.

    (3) Where to submit exclusion requests? All exclusion requests
must be in electronic form and submitted to the Federal rulemaking
portal (http://www.regulations.gov). You can find the interim final
rule that added this supplement by searching for the regulations.gov
docket number, which is BIS-2018-0006.
    (4) No time limit for submitting exclusion requests. All
exclusion requests must be in electronic form and submitted to the
Federal rulemaking portal (http://www.regulations.gov), but may be
submitted at any time.
    (5) Substance of exclusion requests. An exclusion request must
specify the business activities in the United States within which
the requester is engaged that qualify the individual or organization
to be directly affected and thus eligible to submit an exclusion
request. The request should clearly identify, and provide support
for, the basis upon which the exclusion is sought. An exclusion will
only be granted if an article is not produced in the United States
in a sufficient and reasonably available amount, is not produced in
the United States in a satisfactory quality, or for specific
national security considerations.
    (6) Criteria used to review exclusion requests. The U.S.
Department of Commerce will review each exclusion request to
determine whether an article described in an exclusion request meets
any of the following three criteria: the article is not produced in
the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount,
is not produced in the United States in a satisfactory quality, or
for specific national security considerations. To provide additional
context on the meaning and application of the criteria, paragraphs
(c)(6)(i)-(iii) of this supplement define keys terms used in the
review criteria and provide illustrative application examples. The
U.S. Department of Commerce will use the same criteria identified in
paragraphs (c)(6)(i)-(iii) of this supplement when determining
whether it is warranted to approve broader product-based exclusions
based on trends the Department may see over time with 232
submissions. The

public is not permitted to request broader product-based exclusions
that would apply to all importers, because the Department makes
these determinations over time by evaluating the macro trends in 232
submissions.
    (i) Not produced in the United States in a sufficient and
reasonably available amount. The exclusion review criterion ``not
produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably
available amount'' means that the amount of steel that is needed by
the end user requesting the exclusion is not available immediately
in the United States to meet its specified business activities.
``Immediately'' means whether a product is currently being produced
or could be produced ``within eight weeks'' in the amount needed in
the business activities of the user of steel in the United States
described in the exclusion request. The U.S. Department of Commerce
reviews an exclusion request based on the information included in
the exclusion request, any objections to an exclusion request, any
rebuttals to the objections made by an individual or organization
that submitted the exclusion request, and any surrebuttals. If the
Department denies an exclusion request based on a representation
made by an objector, which later is determined to be inaccurate
(e.g., if the objector was not able to meet the requirement of being
able to ``immediately'' supply the steel that was included in a
denied exclusion request in the quantity needed), the requester may
submit a new exclusion request that refers back to the original
denied exclusion request and explains that the objector was not able
to supply the steel. The U.S. Department of Commerce would take that
into account in reviewing a subsequent exclusion request.
    (ii) Not produced in the United States in a satisfactory
quality. The exclusion review criterion ``not produced in the United
States in a satisfactory quality'' does not mean the steel needs to
be identical, but it does need to be equivalent as a substitute
product. ``Substitute product'' for purposes of this review
criterion means that the steel being produced by an objector can
meet ``immediately'' (see paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this supplement)
the quality (e.g., industry specs or internal company quality
controls or standards), regulatory, or testing standards, in order
for the U.S. produced steel to be used in that business activity in
the United States by that end user. For example, if a U.S. business
activity requires that steel plates to be provided must meet certain
military testing and military specification standards in order to be
used in military combat vehicles, that requirement would be taken
into account when reviewing the exclusion request and any
objections, rebuttals and surrebuttals submitted. As another
example, if a U.S. business activity requires that steel tubing to
be provided must meet certain Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approvals to be used in medical devices, that requirement would be
taken into account when reviewing the exclusion request and any
objections, rebuttals, and surrebuttals submitted. Another example
would be a food manufacturer that requires tin-plate approval from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to make any changes in the
tin-plate it uses to make cans for fruit juices. An objector would
not have to make steel for use in making the cans that was
identical, but it would have to be a ``substitute product'' meaning
it could meet the USDA certification standards.
    (iii) For specific national security considerations. The
exclusion review criterion ``or for specific national security
considerations'' is intended to allow the U.S. Department of
Commerce, in consultation with other parts of the U.S. Government as
warranted, to make determinations whether a particular exclusion
request should be approved based on specific national security
considerations. For example, if the steel included in an exclusion
request is needed by a U.S. defense contractor for making critical
items for use in a military weapons platform for the U.S. Department
of Defense, and the duty or quantitative limitation will prevent the
military weapons platform from being produced, the exclusion will
likely be granted. The U.S. Department of Commerce, in consultation
with the other parts of the U.S. Government as warranted, can
consider other impacts to U.S. national security that may result
from not approving an exclusion, e.g., the unintended impacts that
may occur in other downstream industries using steel, but in such
cases the demonstrated concern with U.S. national security would
need to be tangible and clearly explained and ultimately determined
by the U.S. Government.
    (d) Objections to submitted exclusion requests.
    (1) Who may submit an objection to a submitted exclusion
request? Any individual or organization that manufactures steel
articles in the United States may file objections to steel exclusion
requests, but the U.S. Department of Commerce will only consider
information directly related to the submitted exclusion request that
is the subject of the objection.
    (2) Identification of objections to submitted exclusion
requests. When submitting an objection to a submitted exclusion
request, the objector must locate the exclusion request and submit a
comment on the submitted exclusion request in regulations.gov. The
file name of the objection submission should include the objector's
name, date of submission of the objection, name of the organization
that submitted the exclusion request, and date the exclusion request
was posted. For example, if Company B is submitting on April 1,
2018, an objection to an exclusion request submitted on March 15,
2018 by Company A, the file should be named: ``Company B
objection_4-1-18 for Company A exclusion request_3-15-18.'' In
regulations.gov once an objection to a submitted exclusion request
is posted, the objection will appear as a document under the related
exclusion request.
    (3) Time limit for submitting objections to submitted exclusions
requests. All objections to submitted exclusion requests must be in
electronic form and submitted to the Federal rulemaking portal
(http://www.regulations.gov) no later than 30 days after the related
exclusion request is posted.
    (4) Substance of objections to submitted exclusion requests. The
objection should clearly identify, and provide support for, its
opposition to the proposed exclusion, with reference to the specific
basis identified in, and the support provided for, the submitted
exclusion request. If the objector is asserting that it is not
currently producing the steel identified in an exclusion request but
can produce the steel within eight weeks (meaning the objector meets
the definition of being able to supply the steel ``immediately'' in
order to meet the demand identified in the exclusion request), the
objector must identify how it will be able to produce the article
within eight weeks. This requirement includes specifying in writing
to the U.S. Department of Commerce as part of the objection, the
timeline the objector anticipates in order to start or restart
production of the steel included in the exclusion request to which
it is objecting. For example, a summary timeline that specifies the
steps that will occur over the weeks needed to produce that steel
would be helpful to include, not only for the U.S. Department of
Commerce review of the objection, but also for the requester of the
exclusion and its determination whether to file a rebuttal to the
objection. The U.S. Department of Commerce understands that in
certain cases regulatory approvals, such as from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) or some approvals at the state or local
level may be required to start or restart production and that some
of these types of approvals may be not controllable by an objector.
    (e) Limitations on the size of submissions. Each exclusion
request and each objection to a submitted exclusion request is to be
limited to a maximum of 25 pages, inclusive of all exhibits and
attachments, but exclusive of the respective forms and any CBI
provided to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Each attachment to a
submission must be less than 10 MB.
    (f) Rebuttal process. Only individuals or organizations that
have submitted an exclusion request pursuant to this supplement may
submit a rebuttal to any objection(s) posted to their exclusion
request in the Federal rulemaking portal (http://www.regulations.gov). The objections to submitted exclusion requests
process identified under paragraph (d) of this supplement already
establish a formal response process for steel manufacturers in the
United States. The objection process is an important part of
ensuring the duties and quantitiative limitations are working as
intended to achieve the stated purposes of the President's
Proclamations and the objectives of implementing these duties and
quantitative limitations to protect U.S. national security
interests. In order to enhance the fairness of this process and to
allow the individual or organization that submitted an exclusion
request to respond to any objections submitted to its exclusion
request, this paragraph (f) allows for subsequent written
submissions under the rebuttal process.
    (1) Identification of rebuttals. When submitting a rebuttal, the
individual or organization that submitted the exclusion request
submits a comment on the objection submitted to the exclusion
request in the

Federal rulemaking portal (http://www.regulations.gov). See Annex 1
to Supplements No. 1 and 2 to Part 705 for a five-step process for
how to submit rebuttals. Annex 1 describes the naming convention