Notice of Request for Information (RFI) on Critical Materials Market Dynamics, 28759-28761 [2024-08391]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 77 / Friday, April 19, 2024 / Notices lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Requests to serve as a peer reviewer should be submitted at least four weeks prior to the program’s application deadline, noted on the forecast page, to provide program offices with sufficient time to review resumes and determine an individual’s suitability to serve as a peer reviewer for a specific competition. If you are selected to serve as a peer reviewer, the program office will contact you. Accessible Format: On request to the person(s) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format. Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department. Program Authority: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.); Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.); Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.); and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.). Roberto J. Rodriguez, Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. [FR Doc. 2024–08341 Filed 4–18–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 02:06 Apr 19, 2024 Jkt 262001 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED–2024–SCC–0025] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provision Subpart I Immigration Status Confirmation Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR). DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 20, 2024. ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAMain to access the site. Find this information collection request (ICR) by selecting ‘‘Department of Education’’ under ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ then check the ‘‘Only Show ICR for Public Comment’’ checkbox. Reginfo.gov provides two links to view documents related to this information collection request. Information collection forms and instructions may be found by clicking on the ‘‘View Information Collection (IC) List’’ link. Supporting statements and other supporting documentation may be found by clicking on the ‘‘View Supporting Statement and Other Documents’’ link. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202–377–4018. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 28759 Title of Collection: Student Assistance General Provision Subpart I Immigration Status Confirmation. OMB Control Number: 1845–0052. Type of Review: An extension without change of a currently approved ICR. Respondents/Affected Public: Private sector; State, local, and Tribal governments; individuals and households. Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 118,360. Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 14,794. Abstract: This request is for approval of an extension of the reporting requirements currently in the Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR 668, subpart I. This subpart governs the Immigration-Status Confirmation, as authorized by section 484(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1091). The regulations may be reviewed at 34 CFR 668, subpart I. The regulations are necessary to determine eligibility to receive program benefits and to prevent fraud and abuse of program funds. This collection updates the usage by individuals and schools. While the regulations refer to a secondary confirmation process and completion of the paper G–845 form these processes are no longer in use. The Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (DHS/USCIS) replaced the paper secondary confirmation method with a fully electronic process, Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system and the use of the Third Step Verification Process. Dated: April 16, 2024. Kun Mullan, PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division, Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. [FR Doc. 2024–08420 Filed 4–18–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Request for Information (RFI) on Critical Materials Market Dynamics Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, Department of Energy. ACTION: Request for information. AGENCY: The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department)’s Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains seeks public comment on market dynamics for critical materials, including non-competitive practices and SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM 19APN1 28760 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 77 / Friday, April 19, 2024 / Notices price volatility, to identify potential ways DOE can help address these concerns. Responses to the RFI are requested by May 20, 2024. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments electronically to MESCanalysis@hq.doe.gov and include ‘‘Critical Materials Market Dynamics RFI’’ in the subject line of the email. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further questions may be addressed to Charles Yang, MESCanalysis@ hq.doe.gov or (202) 586–6116. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: I. Background This is an RFI issued by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains (MESC). This RFI seeks public input on market dynamics and price volatility in critical materials processing, refining, and recycling. This RFI will inform DOE’s development of critical materials strategies and measures to more effectively mitigate market volatility as critical materials processing, refining, and recycling are scaled up in the United States and allied countries. MESC seeks input from all types of critical material market participants: • Companies that process, refine, or recycle critical materials; • Groups that supply feedstock for such processors or recyclers (e.g., miners, scrap collectors); • Offtakers of critical materials (e.g., automobile manufacturers, battery manufacturers, other clean energy manufacturers, utilities, heavy industries); • Investors in critical material projects (e.g., project finance investors, banks, commodity traders, brokers, private equity); • Not-for-profit organizations (e.g., entities capable of operating demandside support mechanisms to scale up critical material processing, refining, and recycling); • State, local, and tribal government entities; and • Other interested entities (e.g., trade associations, market-clearing organizations). lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 II. Purpose On July 31, 2023, DOE released its Critical Material Assessment,1 which identified critical materials in the near and medium term that will face supplydemand imbalances. This assessment 1 https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/202307/doe-critical-material-assessment_07312023.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 02:06 Apr 19, 2024 Jkt 262001 also informed the DOE’s Critical Material List.2 MESC is committed to securing the energy supply chains needed to support a clean and stable energy transition, which will be fueled by critical materials. This RFI will help inform the development of the U.S. Department of Energy’s and its Office of Manufacturing Energy Supply Chain’s strategy towards securing critical materials for the energy sector industrial base. The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback on market dynamics in the critical material supply chain and how the Federal Government can play a role in supporting market stability and price transparency. DOE is specifically interested in information on: • Market dynamics for critical material producers and implications of those market dynamics for securing a secure and resilient critical material supply chain; and • What kind of Federal Government support or coordination would be essential to scaling up domestic critical material processing, refining, and recycling, particularly to mitigate market volatility. You may answer as few or as many of the questions below as you would like. Please use the question number in your response to help reviewers. Please also provide detailed responses. III. Questions 1. For a given critical material, are there particular market dynamics DOE should be aware of? a. Are there specific critical materials that have experienced significant market volatility and price instability? b. For a given critical material, are there differences in cost of production domestically versus cost of production in other countries? How are those differences in cost of production reflected in prices? c. What, if any, impact has market volatility and price instability had on various market participants? d. For those critical materials that have experienced significant market volatility and price instability, what are the underlying causes? e. Are there particular critical materials where processing, refining, or recycling projects struggle to attract investment specifically because of demand-side uncertainty and/or lack of 2 The following materials are on the DOE critical material list: aluminum, cobalt, copper, dysprosium, electrical steel, fluorine, gallium, iridium, lithium, magnesium, natural graphite, neodymium, nickel, platinum, praseodymium, silicon, silicon carbide and terbium. https:// www.energy.gov/cmm/what-are-critical-materialsand-critical-minerals. PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 firm offtake (vs., e.g., concerns about competitiveness on price or lengthy qualification processes)? f. How do these market dynamics implicate the ability of domestic critical material producers to sign offtake agreements with end users? How does this impact DOE investments in the critical material industry and the path to securing a resilient supply chain? 2. What measures can DOE take to promote market stability within a given critical material market? a. How can DOE facilitate market adoption and maturity as a stakeholder (e.g., facilitating market information sharing, encouraging price transparency, supporting consortiums)? b. How can DOE support critical material projects beyond capital grants and loans? Are there particular programs or policy mechanisms DOE should leverage with existing statutory authority to support critical material projects and successful project offtake? Are there particular aspects of the supply chain that DOE should focus on? c. In operations without co-located vertical integration across extraction (or production) and processing, what specific federal support would be most useful to provide operational stability? 3. What indicators of market volatility demonstrate the need for support? What are effective measures or guiding principles DOE or the Federal Government could take to support critical materials? a. What are important considerations in exploring reverse auctions, advanced market commitments, contracts for difference, direct procurement, pooled offtake vehicles, or other support measures? b. What are implementation approaches for DOE to facilitate demand-side support for critical materials through existing grant and loan authorities and/or public-private partnerships? 4. What are the benefits and drawbacks of physical offtake of critical material products for stockpiling compared to other measures that do not involve physical offtake? What existing mechanisms could be used and what concerns should be considered in terms of implementation? 5. How would setting up alternative market exchanges or indices with international partners for critical materials enable price transparency, market stability, and/or reduce emissions from critical material production? a. What premium would firms be willing to pay for validated attributes such as ESG standards and supply chains sourced from domestic/allied E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM 19APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 77 / Friday, April 19, 2024 / Notices lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 countries? How could DOE or the Federal Government support greater demand for higher standard materials? b. How might environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards or critical material grades specific to energy applications be incorporated into an exchange and what are the conditions needed for successful implementation? 6. What other tools outside of market exchanges could support price transparency, market stability, and/or reduce emissions from critical material production? a. What actions could the United States take in collaboration with its international partners to enhance price transparency and stability? b. Which country partners would be ideal collaborators? c. Are there established international fora that are better suited to have an impact on these challenges? (i.e., International Energy Agency, G7, OECD, etc.) IV. Response Guidelines Commenters are welcome to comment on any question. RFI responses shall include: 1. RFI title; 2. Name(s), phone number(s), and email address(es) for the principal point(s) of contact; 3. Institution or organization affiliation and postal address; and 4. Clear indication of the specific question(s) to which you are responding. Responses to this RFI must be submitted electronically to MESCanalysis@hq.doe.gov with the subject line ‘‘Critical Materials Market Dynamics RFI’’ no later than 5:00 p.m. (ET) on May 20, 2024. Responses must be provided as attachments to an email. It is recommended that attachments with file sizes exceeding 25 MB be compressed (i.e., zipped) to ensure message delivery. Responses must be provided as a Microsoft Word (*.docx) or Adobe Acrobat (*.pdf) attachment to the email, and no more than 10 pages in length, 12-point font, 1-inch margins. Only electronic responses will be accepted. A response to this RFI will not be viewed as a binding commitment to develop or pursue the project or ideas discussed. MESC may engage in preand post-response conversations with interested parties. Confidential Business Information Because information received in response to this RFI may be used to structure future programs and/or otherwise be made available to the VerDate Sep<11>2014 02:06 Apr 19, 2024 Jkt 262001 public, respondents are strongly advised NOT to include any information in their responses that might be considered business sensitive, proprietary, or otherwise confidential. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two wellmarked copies: one copy of the document marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Failure to comply with these marking requirements may result in the disclosure of the unmarked information under the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise. The U.S. Government is not liable for the disclosure or use of unmarked information and may use or disclose such information for any purpose. If your response contains confidential, proprietary, or privileged information, you must include a cover sheet marked as follows identifying the specific pages containing confidential, proprietary, or privileged information: Notice of Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data: Pages [list applicable pages] of this response may contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged information that is exempt from public disclosure. Such information shall be used or disclosed only for the purposes described in this RFI. The Government may use or disclose any information that is not appropriately marked or otherwise restricted, regardless of source. In addition, (1) the header and footer of every page that contains confidential, proprietary, or privileged information must be marked as follows: ‘‘Contains, Confidential, Proprietary, or Privileged Information Exempt from Public Disclosure’’ and (2) every line and paragraph containing proprietary, privileged, or trade secret information must be clearly marked with [[double brackets]] or highlighting. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to: MESCanalysis@hq.doe.gov. Signing Authority This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 12, 2024, by Giulia Siccardo, Director, Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 28761 Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register. Signed in Washington, DC, on April 16, 2024. Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy. [FR Doc. 2024–08391 Filed 4–18–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Office of Science, Department of Energy. AGENCY: Notice of an open virtual meeting. ACTION: This notice announces an open virtual meeting of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register. SUMMARY: Tuesday, April 23, 2024; 11:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. EST. DATES: Information for viewing the livestream of the meeting can be found on the PCAST website closer to the meeting at: www.whitehouse.gov/ PCAST/meetings. ADDRESSES: Dr. Melissa A. Edwards, Designated Federal Officer, PCAST, email: PCAST@ ostp.eop.gov; telephone: 202–881–9018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PCAST is an advisory group of the nation’s leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from the White House, cabinet departments, and other Federal agencies. See the Executive Order at whitehouse.gov. PCAST is consulted on and provides analyses and recommendations concerning a wide range of issues where understanding of science, technology, and innovation may bear on the policy choices before the President. The Designated Federal Officer is Dr. Melissa A. Edwards. Information about PCAST can be found at: www.whitehouse.gov/PCAST. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM 19APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28759-28761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08391]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Notice of Request for Information (RFI) on Critical Materials 
Market Dynamics

AGENCY: Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Request for information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department)'s Office of 
Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains seeks public comment on market 
dynamics for critical materials, including non-competitive practices 
and

[[Page 28760]]

price volatility, to identify potential ways DOE can help address these 
concerns.

DATES: Responses to the RFI are requested by May 20, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments electronically to 
[email protected] and include ``Critical Materials Market 
Dynamics RFI'' in the subject line of the email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further questions may be addressed to 
Charles Yang, [email protected] or (202) 586-6116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    This is an RFI issued by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) 
Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains (MESC). This RFI seeks 
public input on market dynamics and price volatility in critical 
materials processing, refining, and recycling. This RFI will inform 
DOE's development of critical materials strategies and measures to more 
effectively mitigate market volatility as critical materials 
processing, refining, and recycling are scaled up in the United States 
and allied countries.
    MESC seeks input from all types of critical material market 
participants:
     Companies that process, refine, or recycle critical 
materials;
     Groups that supply feedstock for such processors or 
recyclers (e.g., miners, scrap collectors);
     Offtakers of critical materials (e.g., automobile 
manufacturers, battery manufacturers, other clean energy manufacturers, 
utilities, heavy industries);
     Investors in critical material projects (e.g., project 
finance investors, banks, commodity traders, brokers, private equity);
     Not-for-profit organizations (e.g., entities capable of 
operating demand-side support mechanisms to scale up critical material 
processing, refining, and recycling);
     State, local, and tribal government entities; and
     Other interested entities (e.g., trade associations, 
market-clearing organizations).

II. Purpose

    On July 31, 2023, DOE released its Critical Material Assessment,\1\ 
which identified critical materials in the near and medium term that 
will face supply-demand imbalances. This assessment also informed the 
DOE's Critical Material List.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/doe-critical-material-assessment_07312023.pdf.
    \2\ The following materials are on the DOE critical material 
list: aluminum, cobalt, copper, dysprosium, electrical steel, 
fluorine, gallium, iridium, lithium, magnesium, natural graphite, 
neodymium, nickel, platinum, praseodymium, silicon, silicon carbide 
and terbium. https://www.energy.gov/cmm/what-are-critical-materials-and-critical-minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MESC is committed to securing the energy supply chains needed to 
support a clean and stable energy transition, which will be fueled by 
critical materials. This RFI will help inform the development of the 
U.S. Department of Energy's and its Office of Manufacturing Energy 
Supply Chain's strategy towards securing critical materials for the 
energy sector industrial base.
    The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback on market dynamics 
in the critical material supply chain and how the Federal Government 
can play a role in supporting market stability and price transparency. 
DOE is specifically interested in information on:
     Market dynamics for critical material producers and 
implications of those market dynamics for securing a secure and 
resilient critical material supply chain; and
     What kind of Federal Government support or coordination 
would be essential to scaling up domestic critical material processing, 
refining, and recycling, particularly to mitigate market volatility.
    You may answer as few or as many of the questions below as you 
would like. Please use the question number in your response to help 
reviewers. Please also provide detailed responses.

III. Questions

    1. For a given critical material, are there particular market 
dynamics DOE should be aware of?
    a. Are there specific critical materials that have experienced 
significant market volatility and price instability?
    b. For a given critical material, are there differences in cost of 
production domestically versus cost of production in other countries? 
How are those differences in cost of production reflected in prices?
    c. What, if any, impact has market volatility and price instability 
had on various market participants?
    d. For those critical materials that have experienced significant 
market volatility and price instability, what are the underlying 
causes?
    e. Are there particular critical materials where processing, 
refining, or recycling projects struggle to attract investment 
specifically because of demand-side uncertainty and/or lack of firm 
offtake (vs., e.g., concerns about competitiveness on price or lengthy 
qualification processes)?
    f. How do these market dynamics implicate the ability of domestic 
critical material producers to sign offtake agreements with end users? 
How does this impact DOE investments in the critical material industry 
and the path to securing a resilient supply chain?
    2. What measures can DOE take to promote market stability within a 
given critical material market?
    a. How can DOE facilitate market adoption and maturity as a 
stakeholder (e.g., facilitating market information sharing, encouraging 
price transparency, supporting consortiums)?
    b. How can DOE support critical material projects beyond capital 
grants and loans? Are there particular programs or policy mechanisms 
DOE should leverage with existing statutory authority to support 
critical material projects and successful project offtake? Are there 
particular aspects of the supply chain that DOE should focus on?
    c. In operations without co-located vertical integration across 
extraction (or production) and processing, what specific federal 
support would be most useful to provide operational stability?
    3. What indicators of market volatility demonstrate the need for 
support? What are effective measures or guiding principles DOE or the 
Federal Government could take to support critical materials?
    a. What are important considerations in exploring reverse auctions, 
advanced market commitments, contracts for difference, direct 
procurement, pooled offtake vehicles, or other support measures?
    b. What are implementation approaches for DOE to facilitate demand-
side support for critical materials through existing grant and loan 
authorities and/or public-private partnerships?
    4. What are the benefits and drawbacks of physical offtake of 
critical material products for stockpiling compared to other measures 
that do not involve physical offtake? What existing mechanisms could be 
used and what concerns should be considered in terms of implementation?
    5. How would setting up alternative market exchanges or indices 
with international partners for critical materials enable price 
transparency, market stability, and/or reduce emissions from critical 
material production?
    a. What premium would firms be willing to pay for validated 
attributes such as ESG standards and supply chains sourced from 
domestic/allied

[[Page 28761]]

countries? How could DOE or the Federal Government support greater 
demand for higher standard materials?
    b. How might environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards 
or critical material grades specific to energy applications be 
incorporated into an exchange and what are the conditions needed for 
successful implementation?
    6. What other tools outside of market exchanges could support price 
transparency, market stability, and/or reduce emissions from critical 
material production?
    a. What actions could the United States take in collaboration with 
its international partners to enhance price transparency and stability?
    b. Which country partners would be ideal collaborators?
    c. Are there established international fora that are better suited 
to have an impact on these challenges? (i.e., International Energy 
Agency, G7, OECD, etc.)

IV. Response Guidelines

    Commenters are welcome to comment on any question. RFI responses 
shall include:
    1. RFI title;
    2. Name(s), phone number(s), and email address(es) for the 
principal point(s) of contact;
    3. Institution or organization affiliation and postal address; and
    4. Clear indication of the specific question(s) to which you are 
responding.
    Responses to this RFI must be submitted electronically to 
[email protected] with the subject line ``Critical Materials 
Market Dynamics RFI'' no later than 5:00 p.m. (ET) on May 20, 2024. 
Responses must be provided as attachments to an email. It is 
recommended that attachments with file sizes exceeding 25 MB be 
compressed (i.e., zipped) to ensure message delivery. Responses must be 
provided as a Microsoft Word (*.docx) or Adobe Acrobat (*.pdf) 
attachment to the email, and no more than 10 pages in length, 12-point 
font, 1-inch margins. Only electronic responses will be accepted.
    A response to this RFI will not be viewed as a binding commitment 
to develop or pursue the project or ideas discussed. MESC may engage in 
pre- and post-response conversations with interested parties.

Confidential Business Information

    Because information received in response to this RFI may be used to 
structure future programs and/or otherwise be made available to the 
public, respondents are strongly advised NOT to include any information 
in their responses that might be considered business sensitive, 
proprietary, or otherwise confidential.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that 
he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public 
disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: one copy of 
the document marked ``confidential'' including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-
confidential'' with the information believed to be confidential 
deleted. Failure to comply with these marking requirements may result 
in the disclosure of the unmarked information under the Freedom of 
Information Act or otherwise. The U.S. Government is not liable for the 
disclosure or use of unmarked information and may use or disclose such 
information for any purpose. If your response contains confidential, 
proprietary, or privileged information, you must include a cover sheet 
marked as follows identifying the specific pages containing 
confidential, proprietary, or privileged information:
    Notice of Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data:
    Pages [list applicable pages] of this response may contain 
confidential, proprietary, or privileged information that is exempt 
from public disclosure. Such information shall be used or disclosed 
only for the purposes described in this RFI. The Government may use or 
disclose any information that is not appropriately marked or otherwise 
restricted, regardless of source.
    In addition, (1) the header and footer of every page that contains 
confidential, proprietary, or privileged information must be marked as 
follows: ``Contains, Confidential, Proprietary, or Privileged 
Information Exempt from Public Disclosure'' and (2) every line and 
paragraph containing proprietary, privileged, or trade secret 
information must be clearly marked with [[double brackets]] or 
highlighting. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to: 
[email protected].

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 12, 
2024, by Giulia Siccardo, Director, Office of Manufacturing and Energy 
Supply Chains, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of 
Energy. That document with the original signature and date is 
maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance 
with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 16, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2024-08391 Filed 4-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.