G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33  
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
4 October  2023 
(23-6633) Page: 1/24 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices  
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  Original:  English  
 
  
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER  
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS  
UNITED STATES 
Supplement  
The following communication, dated and received on 29 September 2023, is being circulated at the 
request of the delegation of the United States.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Pursuant to Article 32.6 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  and Article 18.5 
of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
1994, the United States hereby notifies : 
Administrative Protective Order, Service, and Other Procedures in Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Proceedings  
Pursuant to its authority under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the US Department 
of Commerce (Commerce) is modifying its regulations governing procedures related to 
administrative protective orders and service of documents submitted in antidumping (AD) and 
countervailing duty (CVD) proceedings.  Specifically, Commerce is making certain ch anges to its 
procedures governing the filing of documents (including public documents, business proprietary 
documents, and public versions of business proprietary documents), as well as service of documents.  
Commerce is also making additional clarification s and corrections to other procedural aspects of its 
AD/CVD regulations, including updates to the scope, circumvention, and covered merchandise 
referral regulations.  Lastly, Commerce is deleting from its regulations two  provisions that have been 
invalidate d by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  
The effective date of this final rule is October  30, 2023, and will apply to all AD/CVD proceedings 
that are ongoing on the effective date and all AD/CVD proceedings initiated on or after the effective 
date. 
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September  29, 2023)]  
[Rules and Regulations]  
[Pages 67069 -67081]  
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov ] 
[FR Doc No : 2023-21516]  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------------------------  
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE  
International Trade Administration  
19 CFR Part 351  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 2 - 
  [Docket No. 230905 -0210]  
RIN 0625-AB15  
Administrative Protective Order, Service, and Other Procedures in  
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings  
AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,  
Department of Commerce.  
ACTION : Final rule.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
SUMMARY : Pursuant  to its authority under title VII of the Tariff Act of  1930, as amended (the Act), 
the US Department of Commerce (Commerce)  is modifying its regulations governing procedures 
related to  administrative protective orders (APO) and service of documents  submitt ed in antidumping 
(AD) and countervailing duty (CVD)  proceedings . Specifically, Commerce is making certain changes 
to its procedures governing the filing of documents (including public  documents, business proprietary 
documents, and public versions of  business proprietary documents), as well as service of documents.  
Commerce is also making additional clarifications and corrections to  other procedural aspects of its 
AD/CVD regulations, including updates  to the scope, circumvention, and covered merchandis e 
referral  regulations . Lastly, Commerce is deleting from its regulations two  provisions that have been 
invalidated by the United States Court of  Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit).   
DATES : Effective date : October  30, 2023 . This final rule w ill apply to  all AD/CVD proceedings that 
are ongoing on the effective date and all  AD/CVD proceedings initiated on or after the effective date.  
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Nikki Kalbing at (202) 482 -4343, Elio  Gonzalez at 
(202)  482-3765, or Scott McBr ide at (202) 482 -6292.  
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  
General Background  
 On November  28, 2022, Commerce published a proposed modification of  its regulations 
governing procedures related to APOs and service of  documents submitted in AD and CVD 
proceedings and to procedural aspects  of its AD/CVD regulations (hereafter, the Proposed Rule). \1\ 
The Proposed Rule explained Commerce's proposal to make permanent certain  changes to its service 
procedures that have been adopted on a temporary  basis due to COVID -19, and proposed additional 
clarifications and  corrections to its AD/CVD regulations, including updating the scope,  circumvention, 
and covered merchandise referrals, and deleting from its  regulations two provisions that have been 
invalidated by the Federal  Circuit . Commerce received nine comments on the Proposed Rule and has  
addressed those comments below . After analyzing and carefully  considering each comment it 
received in response to the Proposed Rule,  Commerce has adopted the proposed modification with 
certain changes and  is amending its regulations accordingly.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
 \1\ See Administrative Protective Order, Service, and Other  Procedures in Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 87 FR  72916 ( November  28, 2022) (Proposed Rule).  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
Explanation of Modifications From the Proposed Rule to the Final Rule  
 As we explained in the Proposed Rule, one of the purposes for  modifying our regulations is to 
assist in making the administration of  Commerce's AD/CVD proceedings more efficient by allowing 
parties to  utilize available electronic or  other efficient means of service . In this final rule, Commerce 
has determined to make certain modifications  from the Proposed Rule in response to the comments 
received . With these  modifications, as discussed further below, this final rule codifies the  
regulations proposed on November  28, 2022.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 3 - 
   In this final rule, Commerce is amending proposed section  351.303(f)(1)(iii) to make service 
via electronic transmission for  public documents and public versions of a business proprietary  
document, and service via s ecure electronic transmission for business  proprietary documents, the 
default method of alternative service when  service of such documents cannot be effectuated on 
ACCESS or when  ACCESS is unavailable . This includes, for example, service of business  propri etary 
documents filed under the one -day lag rule under section  351.303(c) (i.e., non -final business 
proprietary documents filed on the  due date under the one -day lag rule) . As a result of adopting this  
change, Commerce is not adopting its proposed modifica tion that parties  file a standalone certificate 
of service for documents filed under the  one-day lag rule under proposed section 351.303(c)(2)(i) . 
Commerce is  also modifying section 351.303(f)(2)(i) to permit electronic service of  certain requests 
for review . In addition, Commerce is modifying section  351.305(c)(2) to specify that service of 
earlier -filed business  proprietary submissions that are no longer available on ACCESS may be  
effectuated via secure electronic transmission . Commerce is also making  some additional 
modifications for clarity and consistency . Finally, in  this final rule, we are adopting the proposed 
amendments to the  regulations discussed in the Proposed Rule for which we did not receive  
comments, or that we are not otherwise modifying , as discussed in  greater detail below.  
 The following sections generally contain a brief discussion of each  regulatory provision for 
which we received comments, a summary of the  comments we received, and Commerce's responses 
to those comments . These sections contain further explanation of any changes Commerce is making  
in this final rule from the Proposed Rule, either in response to  comments or that Commerce deems 
necessary for conforming to, or  clarification of, the regulations, or for providing additiona l public  
benefit . The final section discusses additional comments suggesting  other modifications to the 
ACCESS system and filing procedures that  were not covered or addressed in the Proposed Rule and 
are therefore  not included in this final rule.  
Responses to Comments Received on the Proposed Rule  
 Commerce received nine comments on the Proposed Rule . Below is a  summary of the 
comments, grouped by issue category, followed by  Commerce's response.  
Standalone Certificates of Service for Business Propr ietary Documents  
 Proposed section 351.303(c)(2)(i) would require a party filing a  business proprietary 
document on ACCESS to also file a separate,  standalone, public certificate of service with its 
submission . Although  the Preamble to  
[[Page 67070]]  
the Proposed Rule indicates that this provision would apply to business  proprietary documents filed 
under the one -day lag rule, two commenters  interpret the certificate of service requirement under 
section  351.303(c)(2)(i) as applying to any busine ss proprietary filing . One commenter suggests 
that Commerce modify proposed section  351.303(c)(2)(i) to limit the standalone certificate of 
service  requirement to only business proprietary documents filed under the one -day lag rule.  
 Several other commente rs argue that any requirement to file a  standalone certificate of 
service is burdensome, inefficient, costly,  would clutter the docket, and would not necessarily provide 
same -day notice of a filing, because documents submitted close to 5:00 p.m.  often do n ot appear 
on ACCESS until the next day . Another commenter  argues that the standalone certificate of service 
would add little  value if Commerce reinstates the requirement to serve documents  submitted under 
the one -day lag rule and even if Commerce does not  reinstate that service rule, the standalone 
certificate of service will  only inform parties that the filing was made, which would become  apparent 
anyway in one business day.  
 These commenters suggest several alternatives, including making  technical changes  to 
ACCESS to permit the one -day lag filing to appear  on the ACCESS docket and digests, but not be 
viewable or downloadable,  which would give parties notice of the filing without it becoming part  of 
the official record . One commenter argues that Commerce s hould  simply require a certificate of 
service with every public and  proprietary filing . Another suggestion, further discussed below, is to  
require electronic service of documents filed under the one -day lag  rule on the same day they are 
filed with Commerce, thereby obviating  the need to file a standalone certificate of service.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 4 - 
   Response : We clarify that the proposal to file standalone  certificates of service only applies to 
documents submitted under the  one-day lag rule and does not apply to all bu siness proprietary  
documents . However, as explained below, we are amending the regulation  to permit the service of 
one-day lag documents via secure electronic  transmission . That will obviate the need to file a 
standalone  certificate of service, because par ties served via secure electronic  transmission will be 
able to receive the documents the same day they  are filed on ACCESS . Thus, we are removing from 
this final rule the  provision of section 351.303(c)(2)(i) that would require the filing of  a standalone 
certificate of service with the submission of business  proprietary documents filed under the one -day 
lag rule.  
 Further, we are not adopting the suggestion that Commerce make one -day lag documents 
appear on the ACCESS docket and digests without being  viewab le or downloadable, as an alternative 
way of providing notice to  parties that a one -day lag submission has been filed . As stated in the  
Proposed Rule, business proprietary documents filed under the one -day lag rule and containing 
non-final bracketing canno t be served via  ACCESS using the same technology used for serving official 
record  documents. \2\ Similarly, ACCESS does not have the technical capability  at this time to make 
these documents appear on the ACCESS docket and  digests without being viewable or downloadable 
or becoming part of the  official record . As stated above, we are amending the regulation to  permit 
the service of one -day lag documents via secure electronic  transmission, which will enable parties 
to receive the documents the  same day they are filed on ACCESS . Therefore, we find it unnecessary 
to adopt this commenter's suggestion.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
 \2\ See Proposed Rule, 87 FR at 72920.  
------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
Service of Business Proprietary Documents, Public Documents, and Public  Versions of Business 
Proprietary Documents via ACCESS  
 Most commenters express s upport for the proposal in proposed  sections 351.303(f)(1)(i) and 
(ii)(A) that, in general, service of a  public document, public version of a business proprietary 
document, and  a business proprietary document will be effectuated on parties on the  public an d APO 
service lists upon filing of the submission on ACCESS,  unless ACCESS is unavailable . Two 
commenters particularly support the  proposal to move service requirements of case and rebuttal 
briefs from  current section 351.303(f)(3)(i) (service of case and rebuttals briefs  through personal 
service on the same day the brief is filed, or  overnight mail or courier on the next day) to proposed 
section  351.303(f)(1), which would generally allow service through ACCESS.  
 However, some commenters express concern tha t due to the time it  takes ACCESS to process 
filed documents and release digest  notifications, parties are not able to download documents the 
same day  they are filed and sometimes must wait a day or longer when documents  are filed before 
a weekend or holid ay. One commenter remarks that under  the Temporary Rule, \3\ case and rebuttal 
briefs were often not  available on ACCESS the same day as filing, which was particularly  problematic 
when filed under the one -day lag rule, which could result  in parties not rece iving case or rebuttal 
briefs until two days or more  after the initial filing . Several commenters remark that ACCESS delays  
in making documents available shorten the time parties must respond to  filings because certain 
response deadlines are triggered from the  filing date . This in turn creates inefficiencies and 
compresses the  time in which Commerce has to conduct a proceeding when parties file  extension 
requests that Commerce must take the time to consider.  
----------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------  
 \3\ See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due  to COVID -19, 
85 FR 17006 ( March  26, 2020) (Temporary Rule)  (temporarily modifying certain requirements for 
serving documents  containing business proprietary information in AD/CVD cases to  facilitate the 
effectuation of service through electronic means for  purposes of promoting public health and slowing 
the spread of COVID -19). The Temporary Rule was extended on  May 18, 2020, and then again  
indefinitely on July 10, 2020 . See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD  Service Requirements Due to 
COVID -19; Extension of Effective Period,  85 FR 29615 ( May 18, 2020) ; Temporary Rule Modifying G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 5 - 
  AD/CVD Service  Requirements Due to CO VID-19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR  41363 
(July 10, 2020).  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
 One commenter proposes that Commerce adjust ACCESS release times to  ensure that 
documents are "served'' on the same business day they are  filed. Another commenter asserts that 
ACCESS delays in making documents  available the same day as filing contravenes the statutory 
requirement  under section 777(d) of the Act that "[a]ny  party submitting written  information, 
including business proprietary information, to the  administering authority … during a proceeding 
shall, at the same  time, serve the information upon all interested parties who are parties  to the 
proceeding, if the inf ormation is covered by a protective  order'' (emphasis added) . This commenter 
suggests that Commerce revise  proposed sections 351.303(f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii)(A) to require that 
if ACCESS does not release a business proprietary, public, or public  version of a document within 
one business day, then the submitter must  effectuate service of the document upon the request of 
a party on the  service list, using one of the alternative methods of service provided  for under 
proposed section 351.303(f)(1)(iii) . The comm enter relatedly  proposes to add a requirement to 
proposed section 351.303(f)(1)(iii)  that if such an alternative method of service is used  
[[Page 67071]]  
when ACCESS does not release documents within one business day, the  submitter would then be 
required t o file a revised certificate of  service pursuant to sections 351.303(c)(2)(i) and 
351.303(f)(3).  
 Response : We understand the concerns expressed by some commenters  that parties 
sometimes must wait a day or longer to download filed  documents due to ACCESS d elays. While 
most of the time documents are  made available on the same day they are filed on ACCESS, this is 
not always achievable . Commerce endeavors to review and approve for release  on ACCESS all 
documents submitted on the same day of filing, but this  is sometimes not possible due to 
Commerce's limited resources, as well  as other factors, including the timing of when the document 
is filed on  ACCESS, and the volume of files that must be reviewed and approved . On balance, 
Commerce makes documents available on ACCESS as soon as  possible, and many times, on the 
same day the document is filed.  
 Relatedly, we disagree with the comment that section 777(d) of the  Act requires documents 
to be made available the same day as filing . The statute requires tha t a document be served at the 
same time as it is  filed, but it does not require that the document be received by parties  on the same 
day as filing. \4\ Thus, the requirements of the statute are  fulfilled for those situations under the 
revised regulations wh ere service is effectuated upon filing on ACCESS, even if the document is  not 
received by other parties on the same day as filing . This is  consistent with how service operates 
under the current regulations  where, for example, parties may serve certain docu ments by first -class 
mail on the day the document is filed, but the documents are not  necessarily received on the same 
day as filing.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
 \4\ Sectio n 777(d) of the Act states, "Any party submitting  written information, including 
business proprietary information, to  the administering authority or the Commission during a 
proceeding  shall, at the same time, serve the information upon all interested  parties who are parties 
to the proceeding, if the information is  covered by a protective order'' (emphasis added).  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
 For the reasons discussed above, w e are not adopting the suggestion  that Commerce revise 
the regulations to provide that if ACCESS does not  release a business proprietary, public, or public 
version of a document  within one business day, the submitter must effectuate service using an  
alternative method of service and file a revised certificate of  service . Such a rule would be difficult 
for Commerce to administer  given its limited resources . Moreover, submitters would not be able to  
predict when the submission will be made available in ACCESS, and thus,  may not know that they 
should effectuate service using an alternative  method.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 6 - 
  Alternative Methods of Service for Business Proprietary Documents,  Public Documents, and Public 
Versions of Business Proprietary Documents  
 Several commenters r aise concerns about mail or hand delivery as  alternative methods of 
service authorized under proposed section  351.303(f)(1)(iii) when service of a public, business 
proprietary, or  public version of a business proprietary document cannot be effectuated  through 
ACCESS . Commenters argue that mail or hand delivery is  regressive, contrary to the stated purpose 
of the Proposed Rule to make  service more efficient, costly, burdensome, less reliable than  electronic 
transmission, out of step with modern professional practice  of electronic transmission, wasteful 
(when the documents will usually  be scanned and the delivered hard copy destroyed), and 
inequitable in  that it requires some personnel to be in the office rather than  telework . Several 
commenters also point out  that Commerce itself uses  encrypted electronic platforms when 
transmitting business proprietary  documents.  
 One commenter argues that proposed section 351.303(f)(1)(iii)  places a greater burden on 
petitioners' firms, which often file  submissions containin g business proprietary information of 
multiple  parties, and therefore are required to serve submissions by hand  delivery or mail . Even if a 
petitioner is commenting on the business  proprietary information of only one respondent, the 
petitioner only has  the option of seeking consent to electronic service from that  particular respondent 
and would still have to serve all other parties  on the APO service list by hand or by mail . One 
commenter points out  that for documents submitted under the one -day lag rule, service by  mail or 
hand delivery does not necessarily result in parties receiving  the documents on the day of filing, but 
rather after filing of the  final business proprietary version on ACCESS.  
 Thus, several commenters propose that Commerce elimina te the  requirement for service by 
mail or hand delivery and make electronic  service through secure electronic transmission the default 
rule. Some commenters propose that in making electronic service the default rule,  Commerce should 
require that when parti es sign an APO or make an entry  of appearance, they agree to electronic 
transmission via secure file  transfer unless they specifically opt out and request service by hand  
delivery or mail on their forms . One commenter suggests that Commerce  may also consid er giving 
parties the option to express inability to  receive certain types of electronic service . Another 
commenter  recommends amending proposed section 351.303(f)(1)(iii) to establish  that service of 
documents containing business proprietary information  of a person who is not included on the APO 
service list shall be made  via secure electronic file transfer unless the party has "opted out''  in its 
entry of appearance, in which case service may be effectuated by  hand delivery or first -class mail . 
One commen ter similarly proposes  that electronic service through encrypted platforms should also 
be available to pro se and non -APO represented parties.  
 Several commenters also argue that Commerce should specify certain  security standards that 
electronic transmissi on platforms used to  transmit documents are required to contain.  
 Some commenters argue that under proposed section  351.303(f)(1)(iii), Commerce should 
allow secure electronic  transmission of a third party's business proprietary information,  rather than 
just that of the sender and recipient and eliminate the  requirement of consent from the recipient for 
service through secure  electronic transmission . Commenters argue that the requirement to seek  
consent for electronic service of business proprietary documen ts that  contain business proprietary 
information of the sender or the recipient  only is burdensome . For certain documents that include 
issues and  arguments relating to multiple parties (e.g., case briefs), it may not  be possible to include 
business proprietary information without  preparing party -specific versions of the submission . Thus, 
commenters  argue that the default rule for electronic service through secure  electronic transmission 
(unless a party affirmatively opts out) would  eliminate the inef ficiency of requiring parties to obtain 
consent  before using electronic file transfer and eliminate the need for  multiple different versions of 
the same document depending on whether a  party affirmatively consented to electronic service.  
 If Commerce permits service by unencrypted email, several  commenters argue that such 
submissions should still only contain the  recipient's or submitter's business proprietary information, 
and that  all parties must consent . Another commenter proposes that, in addition  to these 
requirements, the recipient must explicitly request an  unencrypted email transmission.  
[[Page 67072]]  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 7 - 
   One commenter raises concern regarding the requirement of section  351.303(f)(1)(ii)(B) that 
if a document contains the business  proprie tary information of a party who is not on the APO service 
list, the submitter of the document must serve the unrepresented party its  own business proprietary 
information using one of the alternative  service methods under section 351.303(f)(1)(iii) . This 
requirement,  according to the commenter, would require represented parties to reach  an agreement 
with unrepresented parties on an alternative means of  service, and potentially place the represented 
party in the position of  needing to explain the regulations to the unrepresented party, which  could 
lead to conflicts in which Commerce would need to intervene . The commenter proposes that 
Commerce amend section 351.303(f)(1)(ii)(B) to  include specific language stating that Commerce 
will instruct, and will  assume t he responsibility for such instruction of, the parties as to  the alternative 
means of service submitters must use under section  351.303(f)(1)(iii).  
 Another  commenter requests clarification of the statements that  public and business 
proprietary documents will be served via ACCESS  "unless ACCESS is unavailable " and that an 
alternative method of  service must be used if service "cannot be effectuated on ACCESS ( for any 
reason). " Although the commenter interprets these phrases to  encompass situations where a filing 
is not submitted through ACCESS  (e.g., ACCESS is temporarily unavailable due to technical failure) 
or a party is unable to receive service via ACCESS ( e.g., a pro se party  that would not be able to 
receive service via ACCESS of a document  containing only its own business proprietary information), 
the commenter notes that these phrases could be interpreted to encompass  other situations . For 
example, there  may be a situation in which a  party files a document on ACCESS but due to a technical 
error the  document is not made available via ACCESS, and the submitter is unaware  and unable to 
know that it is necessary to take alternative measures.  Thus, the comment er seeks clarification on 
the circumstances under  which service would not be "effectuated on ACCESS. " 
 Response : Upon consideration of these comments, we agree that  electronic service via secure 
electronic transmission between parties  should be the primary  method of service when service 
cannot be  effectuated on ACCESS or when ACCESS is unavailable . This approach is  consistent with 
modern professional practice and would fulfill the goal  of these regulatory amendments to make 
service more efficient . Thus, for this final rule we are amending section 351.303(f)(1)(iii) so that  
service via electronic transmission for public documents and public  versions of business proprietary 
documents, and secure electronic  transmission for business proprietary documents, is th e default 
method  of alternative service when service of such documents cannot be  effectuated on ACCESS or 
when ACCESS is unavailable.  
 This default rule for electronic service will apply to APO -authorized, non -APO authorized, and 
pro se parties . Thus, non -APO authorized representatives and pro se parties generally will be  
permitted to transmit business proprietary information electronically,  subject to additional 
restrictions as explained below . Accordingly, we  find that the concern expressed by one comment er 
that a represented  party may be put in a situation where it needs to explain the  regulations to an 
unrepresented party is rendered moot by adoption of  electronic transmission as the default method 
of alternative service  under section 351.303(f)(1)(iii).  
 Because this is the default rule, parties generally will not need  to affirmatively consent to 
receiving business proprietary information  by electronic transmission . Service by mail or personal 
service \5\ will continue to be an acceptable means of altern ative service only in  the very limited 
circumstance that a party does not have the capacity  to send or receive documents electronically 
(e.g., an interested party  in a foreign country that does not have access to email) . Because  electronic 
service is the d efault rule, we are not adopting the  proposal that parties be permitted to affirmatively 
opt out of  electronic service in their entries of appearance and APO applications.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- --------------------------  
 \5\ For consistency with our current regulations, in this final  rule we have adopted the term 
"personal service'' instead of "hand delivery,'' which was used in the Proposed Rule . By reverting to 
the term in our current regulations, we indicate that methods of  personal service that have been 
used under the current regulations  continue to be acceptable as alternative methods of service when  
secure electronic transmission is not possible.  
----------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 8 - 
   We also clarify that in making electronic service the default rule,  APO-authorized 
representatives will be permitted to serve documents on  other APO -authorized representatives tha t 
include third -party business  proprietary information, and not just that of the sender or the  recipient, 
and the recipient need not affirmatively consent to service  (as was required in the Proposed Rule) . 
That is, any APO -authorized  representative may ser ve documents that include any business  
proprietary information (including that of a third party) on another  APO-authorized representative . 
This alleviates the concern expressed by  some commenters that there is a greater burden on 
petitioners' firms  because  they often file submissions containing the business proprietary  information 
of multiple parties . However, the APO -authorized  representative must ensure that when serving 
documents on non -APO authorized representatives and pro se parties, the documents con tain only 
the business proprietary information of the non -APO authorized  representative or of the pro se party.  
 When compared to APO -authorized representatives, the procedures  differ for non -APO 
authorized representatives and pro se parties where  electronic service is the default rule . Non-APO 
authorized  representatives and pro se parties will be permitted to serve documents  containing the 
business proprietary information of the non -APO represented party or the pro se party (respectively) 
on APO -authorized  representatives. \6\ They may also receive service of documents  containing their 
own business proprietary information.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
 \6\ We note that a non -APO authorized representative or pro se  party may also serve its own 
client's or its own business  proprietary information (respectively) on anyone, but for purposes  of our 
proceedings, they would normally serve APO -authorized  representatives.  
------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
 We strongly encourage the transmission of business proprietary  information through secure 
electronic transmission . However, we will  permit service via unsecure electronic transmission (i.e., 
electronic  mail) if an APO -authorized representative, pro se party, or non -APO authorized 
representative of a party requests service via unsecure  electronic transmission, the recipient 
consents, and the document  contains only the business proprietary information of the submitter or  
recipient . If the business proprietary document is encrypted, then  consent is not required.  
 Given rapid changes in technology, we do not find it practical to  set minimum secur ity 
standards in these regulations . Thus, we are not  adopting the proposal to specify a particular 
encryption level for  secure electronic transmission in the regulation but rather advise that  generally, 
business proprietary documents should be served throu gh platforms that use secure electronic 
transmission (e.g., encrypted  emails, File Transfer Protocol Secure (FTPS), or secure file share such  
as Kiteworks, DocuSign, or Google Drive).  
[[Page 67073]]  
However, more specific security standards may be added to the ACCESS  Handbook and updated 
from time to time as technological changes  necessitate.  
 In response to the comment that language describing ACCESS as  "unavailable'' under 
sections  351.303(f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii)(A) could  be interpreted to include  multiple situations, we 
have amended the  regulation to add a requirement that an alternative form of service in  accordance 
with section 351.303(f)(1)(iii) is needed when a submission  is filed manually, including bulky 
document filings, super bulky  filings , and data files that exceed the file size limit . The reason for  this 
change is to expedite the availability of these submissions, which  require additional processing . In 
some cases, as a commenter mentioned,  there may be delays in making those files avail able, 
especially in  situations where the ACCESS team may need to find an alternative method  of releasing 
the files . In our experience, the transmittal of extremely  large collections of documents has, at times, 
required a corresponding  large use of ACCESS r esources . The use of such resources has, in turn,  
caused the ACCESS system to operate at much slower speeds, resulting in  extensive download times 
for parties and forcing them to download  documents during non -peak times . Considering the above, 
Commerce has  determined that for such manual filings (including bulky document  filings, super 
bulky filings and data files exceeding the file size  limit), that the submitter who is filing the 
submission in this  alternative manner also be required to serve the submissi on in an  alternative G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 9 - 
  manner in accordance with section 351.303(f)(1)(iii) . This additional step for the submitter to ensure 
timely service will be  offset by the time savings the submitter will gain in manually filing  its 
voluminous submission . This require ment also addresses the concerns  of those commenters who 
expressed concern about receiving access to  submissions in a timely manner.  
 We also clarify that ACCESS is considered "unavailable'' when, due  to a technical failure, 
ACCESS is unable to accept elec tronic filings,  as specified in the Handbook on Electronic Filing 
Procedures, which is  available on the ACCESS website at https://access.trade.gov  (via the  ACCESS 
Handbook link) . If ACCESS is unable to accept electronic filings  for more than one hour between the 
hours of 12:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.  Eastern Time, or for any duration of time between the hours of 
4:31 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Commerce will allow a document or data  to be filed manually . 
In such a situation, if a submitter files a  submission manually, it must also serve the submission on 
the parties  to the proceeding in accordance with section 351.303(f)(1)(iii) . Thus, generally, if a 
submitter must file a submission manually, the  submitter must also use an alternative form of 
service . The reason for  requiring alternative service is that a technical failure that requires  manual 
filing will cause a delay in service, as discussed above . At the time of filing, the submitter will be 
aware of the technical failure  and therefore should also be aware of the service obligations for  manual 
filings.  
 If a technical failure occurs, but a submitter already successfully  filed a submission 
electronically before the technical f ailure  occurred, the submitter does not need to serve the 
submission using an  alternative method . Rather, the would -be recipients should wait until  the 
ACCESS technical failure has been resolved, and the submissions  will be available at that time . If 
Comme rce determines that the  technical failure will be lengthy in duration given the severity of the  
problem or a large backlog of filings to process, Commerce may direct  parties to seek service copies 
from one another.  
 Finally, we clarify what is meant by sit uations when service  "cannot be effectuated on 
ACCESS'' under section 351.303(f)(1)(iii).  There are certain situations in which ACCESS does not 
have the  capability to effectuate service based on the way the system is  structured . There are two 
categories th at determine who and what gets  served . Who gets served is determined by the 
individuals on the APO and  public service lists . What gets served is determined by the documents  
that are on the record . A party to the proceeding can use these  guidelines to under stand whether, 
at the time of filing, service of a  particular submission can be effectuated on ACCESS.  
 For example, a document submitted under the one -day lag rule under  section 351.303(c)(2)(i) 
is not considered a record document due to the  non-final nat ure of the designation of business 
proprietary  information ; therefore, service cannot be effectuated on ACCESS.  Another example is a 
document that contains the business proprietary  information of a person who is not included on the 
APO service list.  Under section 351.303(f)(1)(ii)(B), service cannot be effectuated on  ACCESS for 
that person and must be made in accordance with section  351.303(f)(1)(iii) . A further example is a 
situation where a  representative of an interested party is granted APO access after other  parties to 
the proceeding have already filed submissions to the record  and they are no longer available for 
download on ACCESS, as addressed  in section 351.305(c)(2).  
 Other situations in which a document is not immediately made  available on AC CESS are not 
situations in which service cannot be  effectuated on ACCESS.  
Reinstatement of Service Requirement for Documents Filed Under the One -Day Lag Rule  
 Commenters are divided in their support of Commerce's proposed  reinstatement of the 
requirement t hat business proprietary documents  filed under the one -day lag rule be served on 
interested parties.  Commenters who oppose the reinstatement of the service requirement  argue that 
it is burdensome (even if done by electronic means) ; creates  inconsistencies ; increases the likelihood 
of errors, including APO  violations ; and does not allow the flexibility to manage varied  situations, 
such as another pandemic, inclement weather, and increased  telework . One commenter argues that 
the burden of service of one -day lag documents is greater for petitioners' firms, because they are 
more likely to file submissions containing multiple parties' business  proprietary information, and 
such documents cannot be served by  electronic means under the Proposed Rule.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 10 - 
   Several commen ters address Commerce's observation in the Proposed  Rule that under the 
waiver of the service requirement for one -day lag  submissions under the Temporary Rule, parties 
were sometimes not aware  of a filing . One commenter notes that any uncertainty as to whe ther a  
document has been filed under the one -day lag rule lasts only about a  day, and parties have been 
dealing with that uncertainty now for over  two years under the Temporary Rule . This commenter 
points out that any  inconvenience in having a tighter rebuttal period could be alleviated  by 
maintaining the extension of the time for rebuttal briefs from five  to seven days, as adopted under 
the Temporary Rule . Another commenter  points out that lack of same -day notice of the filing of a 
business  proprietary document under the one -day lag rule also occurred before  the Temporary Rule, 
for example when first -class mail delivery of the  document arrived the next business day after filing 
with Commerce . Some commenters note that under the proposed alternat ive methods of service  
under section 351.303(f)(1)(iii), one -day lag filings  
[[Page 67074]]  
might still be received after the final bracketed version is released  by Commerce because of delays 
in the type of service used (e.g., first -class mail) . Thus, seve ral commenters conclude that the 
benefits of  notice through reinstatement of the service requirement for one -day lag  documents do 
not outweigh the burdens and risks.  
 Other commenters propose measures to address Commerce's concern  that parties are not 
aware of the filing of documents under the one -day lag rule, without reinstating the service 
requirement for one -day lag  documents . For example, one commenter suggests that Commerce 
adopt the  proposal under section 351.303(c)(2)(i) to file a standalone  certifi cate of service for 
documents filed under the one -day lag rule  that would include the name of the submission and the 
party for whom it  was filed . This would effectively be a "certificate of non -service''  because the 
documents would not be served but would give parties notice  of the filing of the one -day lag 
document through the ACCESS public  service list . This commenter also proposes that parties be 
permitted to  file the "certificate of non -service'' before the filing of the  document on ACCESS to 
reduce the burden on parties filing multiple  submissions on the same day, to help ensure submissions 
are made in  their entirety prior to the filing deadline, and to increase the  likelihood that other parties 
will be made aware of the filing on the  actual f iling day . Alternatively, the commenter proposes that 
Commerce  permit that the "certificate of non -service'' be filed two hours after  the deadline for the 
one-day lag document (e.g., 7:00 p.m. for a 5:00  p.m. filing deadline), and still be deemed timely.  
 One commenter suggests that Commerce itself release the one -day lag  submission under the 
same procedures as the release of the final  bracketed business proprietary versions . Another 
commenter suggests  that Commerce could require that final business proprie tary and public  versions 
of one -day lag documents contain a header indicating whether  the one -day lag rule was used, an 
approach that is similar to the  current "bracketing not final'' designations on documents filed under  
the one -day lag rule.  
 Several oth er commenters support reinstatement of the service  requirement for documents 
filed under the one -day lag rule . One commenter states that Commerce's concern over parties not 
receiving  notice of filings of one -day lag documents under the Temporary Rule's  waiver of service 
requirements was borne out by its own experiences.  That commenter states that parties often did 
not know if a document had  been filed under the one -day lag rule, or a party had missed the  
deadline . Moreover, because parties did not receive the document the  day it was filed with 
Commerce, they missed a day or more of the  regulatory rebuttal period, requiring the filing of 
extension requests.  Another commenter supports the reinstatement of the service requirement  of 
documents filed und er the one -day lag rule because it prevents  parties from delaying service of 
documents through the one -day lag  rule, and because it enables other parties to ensure that the 
only changes made between the document filed by the deadline under the one -day lag rule and the 
final document relate to identification of  business proprietary information.  
 Some commenters support the reinstatement of the service  requirement for documents filed 
under the one -day lag rule, but object  to the requirement that such service be effectuated outside 
of ACCESS.  These commenters suggest that documents submitted under the one -day lag  rule should 
be deemed served on parties on the APO service list when  filed on ACCESS . Several parties address 
Commerce's explanation in the  Proposed R ule that a business proprietary document filed under the 
one-day lag rule contains non -final bracketing that is not treated as an  official record document, and 
thus cannot be served via ACCESS with the  same technology used for serving official record G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 11 - 
  docum ents. Some commenters suggest that Commerce make technical changes to ACCESS to  
prevent one -day lag filings from becoming part of the official record,  including permitting parties 14 
days to download business proprietary  documents filed under the one -day lag rule before deleting 
the documents from the record.  
 Several commenters state that if documents filed under the one -day lag rule are not served 
via ACCESS, parties should be permitted to  serve such documents via secure electronic transmission 
on the day the  document is filed with Commerce, and object to any requirement that  service be 
completed via first -class mail or hand delivery as  inefficient, costly, and burdensome on parties . 
These commenters argue  that parties often do not r eceive the documents filed under the one -day 
lag rule before the final proprietary version is filed on ACCESS  because documents served by such 
means are not always received on the  same day as filing . One commenter proposes that documents 
filed under  the on e-day lag rule may be served via email if all parties agree, and  that first -class mail 
or hand delivery should only be required when a  party explicitly requests that method of service . 
Other commenters  state that electronic service of one -day lag documents  would obviate  the need 
for the standalone public certificate of service requirements  under proposed 
section  351.303(c)(2)(i).  
 One commenter notes that because the bracketing in one -day lag  filings is only provisional, 
an attorney may not be able to share  it with a client until the final business proprietary version is 
filed. The commenter indicates that delays in receipt when documents are  served via first -class mail 
are particularly problematic with respect  to case and rebuttal briefs, and suggests that Commerce 
could require  that business proprietary case and rebuttal briefs served under the  one-day lag rule 
be served by hand delivery or overnight mail or  courier, and that Commerce could set an earlier 
deadline for submission  of the final proprietary and  public versions of a document submitted  under 
the one -day lag rule . According to this commenter, setting an  earlier deadline would result in a 
greater likelihood that the  submissions would be "approved'' and available to other parties on  
ACCESS on the same day.  
 Finally, two commenters argue that if Commerce reinstates the  service requirement for 
business proprietary documents filed under the  one-day lag rule, service should only be made on 
parties on the APO  service list, and not on pro se or non -APO a uthorized parties . The commenters 
argue that to require service of such documents to non -APO authorized parties before the final 
bracketing is checked creates  significant risk of an APO violation, particularly when submissions  
contain the business propriet ary information of multiple parties . These commenters argue that this 
undermines the purpose of the one -day lag  rule to protect business proprietary information.  
 Response : Upon consideration of these comments, we are adopting our  proposal to reinstate 
the requirement that a business proprietary  document filed on the due date under the one -day lag 
rule must also be  served on the persons on the APO service list and those non -APO authorized 
parties whose business proprietary information is contained  in the do cument . However, as discussed 
above, for this final rule we  are amending section 351.303(f)(1)(iii) so that electronic service via  
secure electronic transmission is the default method of alternative  service, including for business 
proprietary documents fil ed under the  one-day lag rule . We believe  
[[Page 67075]]  
that reinstating the service requirement of such documents eliminates  uncertainties that resulted 
from waiving service during the past three  years under the Temporary Rule and helps with providing 
parties as much  time as possible with such documents to protect their interests . In our  view, this 
fulfills the goal of these regulatory amendments to make  service more efficient and addresses many 
of the concerns raised  regarding the burden of other forms of service, such as first -class mail or 
personal service, while also maintaining flexibility . Although  some commenters oppose the 
reinstatement of service requirements for  documents filed under the one -day lag rule, we are not 
convinc ed that,  overall, the benefits of not being required to serve these documents  under the 
Temporary Rule outweigh the benefits of requiring service.  This is particularly true when considering 
that Commerce is amending  the regulations to permit such documents  to be served via secure  
electronic transmission, which greatly reduces the burdens expressed by  certain commenters.  
 Further, as discussed above, because we are amending the regulation  to permit the service 
of one -day lag documents via secure electronic  transmission, we are removing the requirement to G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 12 - 
  file a standalone  certificate of service from this final rule . For similar reasons, we  determine it is not 
necessary to adopt one commenter's alternative  proposal to require a "certificate of non -service.'' 
Because we are  reinstating the service requirements for business proprietary documents  filed under 
the one -day lag rule, filing a "certificate of non -service'' would not be needed because such 
documents would in fact be  served.  
 Allowing electronic service of business proprietary documents filed  under the one -day lag rule 
removes the uncertainty parties may have  experienced over whether a document was filed under 
the one -day lag  rule or whether the document was untimely filed or not filed at all.  Having the 
submitter serve parties via secure electronic service will  also help to reduce delays in service, enable 
parties to ensure that  any changes made to the final business proprietary document are only  related 
to bracketing, and increase the likelihood that par ties will  receive the documents the same day they 
are filed on ACCESS.  
Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to adopt the suggestion that the  time for submitting rebuttal 
briefs be increased from five to seven  days as a method of relieving the potential comp ressed period 
for submitting rebuttal briefs that may result from delays in receiving  documents filed under the 
one-day lag rule . For similar reasons, we  also find it unnecessary to adopt the suggestion that 
Commerce set an  earlier deadline for the submission of final business proprietary and  public versions 
of documents submitted under the one -day lag rule as a  potential way for these documents to be 
approved faster on ACCESS . We also note that neither of these suggestions are responsive to the  
proposed regulatory amendments in the Proposed Rule, and thus, such  modifications would be 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.  
 Moreover, as discussed above, in making electronic service the  default rule, APO -authorized 
representatives will be permitted to s erve third-party business proprietary information, not just that 
of the  sender or the recipient, and the recipient need not affirmatively  consent to service . This 
alleviates the concern expressed by some  commenters that there is a greater burden on petitio ners' 
firms that  often file submissions containing the business proprietary information  of multiple parties, 
because these parties will be able to  electronically serve documents containing the business 
proprietary  information of multiple parties.  
 Some com menters suggest that Commerce itself should release non -final business proprietary 
documents filed under the one -day lag rule  by making technical changes to ACCESS to prevent such 
documents from  becoming part of the official record . These commenters sugges t that  this would be 
a method of allowing ACCESS to effectuate service of such  documents without reinstating service 
requirements outside of ACCESS.  As stated in the Proposed Rule, business proprietary documents 
filed under the one -day lag rule and contain ing non -final bracketing cannot  be served via ACCESS 
using the same technology used for serving  official record documents. \7\ Should ACCESS technology 
capabilities  change in the future, we will consider whether service of non -final bracketing documents 
can be effectuated upon filing on ACCESS . At this  time, however, we believe that permitting 
electronic service of non -final bracketing documents is efficient, consistent with modern  professional 
practice, and sufficiently addresses the various concerns  raised by parties.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
 \7\ See Proposed Rule, 87 FR at 72920.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------------  
 Finally, certain commenters argue that if Commerce reinstates  service requirements for 
non-final business proprietary documents filed  under the one -day lag rule, such requirement should 
only apply to  persons on the APO se rvice list and not on non -APO authorized  representatives or pro 
se parties because it creates a significant risk  of an APO violation . We recognize there may be some 
risk of a potential  APO violation if parties do not properly bracket business proprietary  information 
in a non -final business proprietary submission . At the same  time, we are cognizant that non -APO 
authorized representatives and pro  se parties would benefit from service of such documents in 
defending  their interests during a segment of the proce eding . We remind parties  of their 
responsibility to properly safeguard business proprietary  information. \8\ Commerce's regulations 
have required parties to  identify whose business proprietary information is contained in a  
submission ; this is not a new requ irement. \9\ If a submitter cannot  identify certain business G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 13 - 
  proprietary information as definitively  belonging to a non -APO authorized representative or pro se 
party, then  it is the submitter's responsibility to bracket the information  accordingly in the non -final 
business proprietary submission and  consider whether service of the submission needs to be made . 
When preparing the final version of the submission, the submitter should  assess whether the 
bracketing should be updated or correc ted. On balance, we believe it is important to reinstate service 
requirements  for non -final business proprietary documents filed under the one -day lag rule on all 
parties, whether or not they are APO -authorized, and  are adopting this change.  
-------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
 \8\ See, e.g., 19 CFR 351.305(a)(1) and 351.306(d).  
 \9\ See 19 CFR 351.306(c)(1) -(2) (requiring a submitting party  to identify, contiguously with 
each item o f business proprietary  information, the person that originally submitted the item).  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------  
 To be clear, the requirement to serve business proprietary  documents filed under the one -day 
lag rule applies to non -final business proprietary documents . For final business proprietary  
documents, with or without bracketing corrections, and public versions  of final business proprietary 
documents, the general rule a pplies that  ACCESS will effectuate service, as outlined elsewhere in 
this final  rule and in the Proposed Rule.  
Request for Review  
 Two commenters express concern over the requirement in proposed  section 351.303(f)(2)(i) 
that requests for an expedited AD review, an  administrative review, a new shipper review, or a 
changed circumstances  review be served by personal service or first -class mail on each  exporter or 
producer specified in the request . One 
[[Page 67076]]  
commenter argues that such delivery methods are inefficient, costly,  and prejudice small - and 
medium -sized enterprises (particularly for  overseas deliveries), and that publicly listed addresses 
are sometimes  undeliverable or refuse service . Moreover, the commenter notes that th e Federal 
Register already provides public notice of the initiation of  such proceedings . Thus, the commenter 
proposes that Commerce permit  parties to serve requests for these reviews through electronic 
means,  unless there are no means for electronic servic e. 
 Response : Upon consideration of these comments, we are amending the  regulation so that 
requests for an expedited AD review, an  administrative review, a new shipper review, or a changed 
circumstances  review may be served via electronic service . Service of documents  containing 
business proprietary information must be effectuated in  accordance with the rules provided 
elsewhere in this final rule.  Although the Federal Register provides public notice of the initiation  of 
these proceedings, there is a delay b etween when parties may request  these reviews and when 
Commerce will initiate the proceeding itself and  publish the Federal Register notice . There is a benefit 
to service of  requests for these types of proceedings because it may inform another  party's deci sion 
whether to participate in the proceeding or to  potentially comment on another party's request prior 
to a decision by  Commerce to initiate the proceeding . Therefore, we are maintaining the  requirement 
to serve requests for these types of reviews but ar e permitting parties to serve these requests via 
electronic service.  
APO Applications Using Electronic Form ITA -367 
 The only commenter remarking on this provision in proposed section  351.305(b)(2) supports 
the codification of the APO application process  to use electronic Form ITA -367, because it would 
expedite the APO  application approvals by Commerce, as well as service of applications  and updated 
service lists.  
 Response : Upon consideration of this comment, we have made no  changes to  this provision 
from the Proposed Rule.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 14 - 
  Service of Business Proprietary Documents to Newly Authorized APO  Representatives  
 Several commenters support the general proposal in proposed section  351.305(c)(2) that 
representatives that are newly granted APO acc ess would be responsible for requesting business 
proprietary documents that  are no longer available on ACCESS from the party that made the 
business  proprietary submission . H owever, one commenter notes that proposed  
section  351.305(c)(2) does not indicate t he acceptable means of service  for such documents, or 
whether a certificate of service would be  required . Thus, the commenter suggests that Commerce 
amend  subparagraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) to state that parties may agree upon  any acceptable means 
of service  listed in section 351.303(f)(1)(iii),  and to state that a certificate of service is not required.  
 Response : Upon consideration of these comments, we clarify that  service via secure electronic 
transmission is permitted and that a  certificate of service is  not required and are amending this 
regulation  accordingly.  
Service of Business Proprietary Information  
 Commenters generally support the proposal in proposed section  351.306(c)(2) that when a 
party is not represented, or when its  representative is not APO -authorized, another party need only 
serve  that party or its representative its own business proprietary  information, and not the business 
proprietary information of other  parties . However, one commenter notes that in some instances a 
party files its own submission even when it is otherwise represented, and  requests that Commerce 
clarify that a submitting party need only serve  a party's representative rather than serve both the 
party and its  representative.  
 Another commenter requests that Commerce lim it the service  exceptions under 
section 351.306(c)(2) to parties and representatives  who are not eligible to obtain approval for 
access under an APO . The commenter states that if a U.S. attorney is eligible to obtain APO  access, 
it should be required to do  so to receive business proprietary  information, including that of its client . 
If the attorney is eligible  to obtain APO access but simply chooses not to, the commenter asserts  
other parties should not be required to serve the attorney under the  service ex ceptions under 
section  351.306(c)(2) for pro se parties and  non-APO authorized representatives and suggests that 
Commerce could  require that parties indicate in their entry of appearance if they are  not eligible to 
submit an APO application and the reasons  why they are  ineligible to submit an APO application.  
 Response : We clarify that a submitting party is required to serve  the party or parties that are 
on the service list . If a party is not on  the service list, but its representative is, the submitting pa rty 
is only required to serve the party's representative, even if the party  itself, and not its representative, 
filed the submission.  
 In addition, we decline to adopt the suggestion that Commerce limit  service exceptions under 
this provision to parties th at are not  eligible to obtain approval for access to an APO . There is no  
requirement to file an APO application, and we do not view it as  appropriate to require a person to 
file an APO application simply  because that person is an attorney . As such, we are not making 
changes  to the regulations to limit the service exceptions in this manner.  
Labor Factors of Production Valuation  
 One commenter argues that if Commerce adopts its proposal to remove  paragraph (c)(3) and 
redesignate paragraph (c)(4) as paragraph (c)(3)  under proposed section 351.408, Commerce 
should also remove the  reference to current paragraph (c)(3) in paragraph (c)(2) . The commenter 
notes that paragraph (c)(2) currently reads : "Except for  labor, as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of 
this section, the Secretary  normally will value all factors in a single surrogate country. " The 
commenter argues that for consistency, that paragraph could be revised  to state : "The Secretary 
normally will value all factors in a single  surrogate country. " 
 Response : We agree and are amending the regulation accordingly.  
Other Suggestions From Commenters  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 15 - 
   Commenters recommended several modifications to the ACCESS system  and filing procedures 
that were not covered or addressed in the  Proposed Rule.  
1. Commenter S uggestions Related to ACCESS  
 Commenters suggested a variety of changes to ACCESS, including:  
 creating a separate docket and separate notification  digests for procedural documents such 
as APO applications, entries of  appearance, and amendments thereto;  
 adding additional notification digests;  
 adding a "released date'' column to show the date and  time a document is made available 
to parties;  
 extending the number of days business proprietary  documents are available on ACCESS to 
30 days;  
 increasing the nu mber of ACCESS proxy users, including a  proposal to create firm -wide 
proxies;  
 increasing the ACCESS file -size limit;  
[[Page 67077]]  
 increasing the number of files available for batch  download;  
 requiring optimization of PDFs for maximum compression;  and 
 consolidating all parts of a filing under one barcode.  
 Response : We note that these suggestions are not responsive to the  proposed regulatory 
amendments in the Proposed Rule . Thus, such  modifications would be outside the scope of this 
rulemaking . However,  Commerce is committed to improving the ACCESS system by implementing  
features that will foster efficiency and ease of use for the most users  while staying within Commerce's 
resource constraints . As such, we will  take these proposals into  consideration and may address one 
or more in  possible future rulemakings . To the extent consideration or  implementation of certain 
new features would not require notice and  comment, Commerce will consider these proposals and 
any new features  adopted will be announced on the ACCESS website at https://access.trade.gov  
and included in the ACCESS Handbook.  
2. Additional Commenter Suggestions  
 Commenters also proposed three additional changes to Commerce's  filing procedures that 
were not included in the Proposed Rule : amending  section 351.309(d) to require rebuttal briefs to 
be due seven days  after the due date for case briefs, rather than the current five days;  amending 
section 351.303(b)(1) to set a filing deadline of 12:00 a.m.  Hawaiian Standard Time, or at a 
minimum changing to a midnight Eastern  Time deadline rather than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time ; and 
amending section  351.303(b)(1) to deem the time of filing of a submission as the time  the party 
begins the filing process, rather than the end time at which  it is filed in its entirety.  
 Response : Commerce has not adopted these three recommendations in  this final rule . The 
Proposed Rule did not cover or address these  regulatory provisions in sections 351.309(d) and 
351.303(b)(1), and the  comments are outside the scope of the modifications and additions to  
regulations that we proposed for comment.  
Classification  
Executive Order 12866  
 OMB has determined that this rule is not signi ficant for purposes  of Executive Order 12866.  
Executive Order 13132  
 This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as  that term is defined in 
section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, dated  August  4, 1999 (64 FR 43255 ( August  10, 1999)).  
Paperwork Reduction Act  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 16 - 
   This rule does not contain a collection of information subject to  the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. chapter 35.  
Regulatory Flexibility Act  
 The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce  certified to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business  Administration at the proposed rule stage that this rule, if 
adopted,  would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of  small business 
entities under the provisions of the Regulatory  Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b) . The factual basis for 
the certification was published with the Proposed Rule and is not repeated  here. We received no 
comments and were not made aware of any positions  of opposition to the certification . As a result, 
a Final  Regulatory  Flexibility Analysis was not required and none was prepared.  
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351  
 Administrative practice and procedure, Antidumping, Business and  industry, Cheese, 
Confidential business information, Countervailing  duties, Freedom of information, Investigations, 
Reporting and  recordkeeping requirements.  
 Dated : September  25, 2023.  
Lisa W.  Wang, 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.  
 For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Commerce  amen ds 19 CFR 
part 351 as follows:  
PART 351--ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES  
0 
1. The authority citation for 19 CFR part 351 continues to read as  follows:  
 Authority : 5 U.S.C. 301 ; 19 U.S.C. 1202 note ; 19 U.S.C. 1303  note; 19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq. ; 
and 19 U.S.C. 3538.  
0 
2. In Sec.  351.103, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:  
Sec. 351.10 3 Central Records Unit and Administrative Protective Order  and Dockets Unit.  
 (a) Enforcement and Compliance's Central Records Unit maintains a  Public File Room  in Room 
B8024, US Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 
DC 20230 . The office  hours of the Public File Room are between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern  Time 
on business days . Visitors to the Public File Room should consul t the ACCESS website at 
https://access.trade.gov  for information  regarding in -person visits . Among other things, the Central 
Records  Unit is responsible for maintaining an official and public record for  each antidumping and 
countervailing duty proceeding (see Sec.  351.104).  
 (b) Enforcement and Compliance's Administrative Protective Order  and Dockets Unit 
(APO/Dockets Unit) is located in Room 18022, U.S.  Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW,  Washington, DC 20230 . The office hours of the APO/Doc kets Unit are  
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time on business days . Visitors to  the APO/ Dockets Unit 
should consult the ACCESS website at https://access.trade.gov  for inform ation regarding in -person 
manual filings.  Among other things, the APO/Dockets Unit is responsible for receiving  submissions 
from interested parties, issuing administrative protective  orders (APOs), maintaining the APO service 
list and the public service  list as provided for in paragraph (d) of this section, releasing  business 
proprietary information under APO, and conducting APO  violation investigations . The APO/Dockets 
Unit also is the contact  point for questions and concerns regarding claims for business  proprietary 
treatment of information and proper public versions of  submissions under Sec . Sec. 351.105 and 
351.304.  
* * * * *  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 17 - 
  0 
3. In Sec.  351.104, revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) to read as follows:  
Sec. 351.10 4 Record of proceedings.  
 (a) * * *  
 (2) * * * 
 (ii) * * *  
 (A) The document, although otherwise timely, contains untimely  filed new factual information 
(see Sec.  351.301(c));  
* * * * *  
Sec. 351.20 4 [Amended]  
0 
4. In Sec.  351.204, remove paragraph (d)(3) and redesignate paragraph  (d)(4) as paragraph (d)(3).  
0 
5. In Sec.  351.225, revise paragraphs (b), (d)(1), (e)(2), and (f)(1)  and (2) to read as follows:  
Sec. 351.22 5 Scope rulings.  
* * * * *  
 (b) Self -initiation of a scope inquiry . If the Secretary determines  from available information 
that an inquiry is warranted to determine  whether a product is covered by the scope of an order, 
the Secretary  may initiate a scope  
[[Page 67078]]  
inquiry by publishing a notice of initiation in the Federal Register.  
* * * * *  
 (d) Initiation of a scope inquir y and other actions based on a  scope application --(1) Acceptance 
and Initiation of a scope inquiry  ruling application . Except as provided under paragraph (d)(2) of 
this section, within 30 days after the filing of a scope application, the  Secretary will det ermine 
whether to accept or reject the scope ruling  application and to initiate or not initiate a scope inquiry, 
or, in the  alternative, paragraph (d)(1)(ii) will apply.  
* * * * *  
 (e) * * *  
 (2) Extension . The Secretary may extend the deadline in paragrap h (e)(1) of this section by 
no more than 180 days, for a final scope  ruling to be issued no later than 300 days after initiation, 
if the Secretary determines that good cause exists to warrant an extension.  Situations in which good 
cause has been demonstrated may include:  
* * * * *  
 (f) * * *  
 (1) Within 30 days after the Secretary's self -initiation of a scope  inquiry under paragraph (b) 
of this section, interested parties are  permitted one opportunity to submit comments and factual 
information  addressing the self -initiation . Within 14 days after the filing of such  comments, any 
interested party is permitted one opportunity to submit  comments and factual information submitted 
by the other interested  parties.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 18 - 
   (2) Within 30 days after the initiation of a scope inquiry under  paragraph (d)(1) of this section, 
an interested party other than the  applicant is permitted one opportunity to submit comments and 
factual  information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information contained  in the scope ruling 
application . Within 14 days after the filing of  such rebuttal, clarification, or correction, the applicant 
is permitted  one opportunity to submit comments and factual information to rebut,  clarify, or correct 
factual information submitted in the interested  party's rebuttal, clarification or correction.  
* * * * *  
0 
6. In Sec.  351.226, revise paragraphs (b), (d)(1), (f)(1) and (2), and  (l)(2)(ii) to read as follows:  
Sec. 351.22 6 Circumvention Inquiries  
* * * * *  
 (b) Self -initiation of a circumvention inquiry . If the Secretary  determines from available 
information that an inquiry is warranted into  the question of whether the elements necessary for a 
circumvention  determination under section 781 of the Act exist, the Secretary may  initiate a 
circumvention inqui ry by publishing a notice of initiation  in the Federal Register.  
* * * * *  
 (d) * * *  
 (1) Initiation of circumvention inquiry . Except as provided under  paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section, within 30 days after the filing of a  request for a circumvention inquiry, the Secretary will 
determine  whether to accept or reject the request and whether to initiate or not  initiate a 
circumvention inquiry . If it is not practicable to determine  whether to accept or reject a request or 
initiate or not init iate within 30 days, the Secretary may extend that deadline by an additional  
15 days.  
* * * * *  
 (f) * * *  
 (1) Within 30 days after the Secretary's self -initiation of a  circumvention inquiry under 
paragraph (b) of this section, interested  parties are perm itted one opportunity to submit comments 
and factual  information addressing the self -initiation . Within 14 days after the  filing of such 
comments, any interested party is permitted one  opportunity to submit comments and factual 
information submitted by the  other interested parties.  
 (2) Within 30 days after the initiation of a circumvention inquiry  under paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section, an interested party other than  the applicant is permitted one opportunity to submit 
comments and  factual information to r ebut, clarify, or correct factual information  contained in the 
scope ruling application . Within 14 days after the  filing of such rebuttal, clarification, or correction, 
the applicant is  permitted one opportunity to submit comments and factual information t o rebut, 
clarify, or correct factual information submitted in the  interested party's rebuttal, clarification, or 
correction.  
* * * * *  
 (1) * * *  
 (2) * * *  
 (ii) The Secretary will direct the Customs Service to begin the  suspension of liquidation and 
require a cash deposit of estimated  duties, at the applicable rate, for each unliquidated entry of the  
product not yet suspended, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for  consumption on or after the 
date of the publication of the notice of  initiation of the circumvention inquiry ; and G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 19 - 
  * * * * *  
0 
7. In Sec.  351.227, revise paragraphs (b) and (d)(1) to read as  follows:  
Sec. 351.22 7 Covered merchandise referrals.  
* * * * *  
 (b) Actions with respect to covered merchandise referral. (1)  Within 20  days after 
acknowledging receipt of a covered merchandise  referral from the Customs Service pursuant to 
section 517(b)(4)(A)(i)  of the Act that the Secretary determines to be sufficient, the  Secretary will 
take one of the following actions.  
 (i) Initiate a covered merchandise inquiry ; or 
 (ii) If the Secretary determines upon review of the covered  merchandise referral that the issue 
can be addressed in an ongoing  segment of the proceeding, such as a scope inquiry under 
Sec. 351.225  or a circumvention inqui ry under Sec.  351.226, rather than initiating  the covered 
merchandise inquiry, the Secretary will address the covered  merchandise referral in such other 
segment.  
 (2) The Secretary will publish a notice of its action taken with  respect to a covered 
merchan dise referral under paragraph (b)(1) of  this section in the Federal Register.  
* * * * *  
 (d) * * *  
 (1) Within 30 days after the date of publication of the notice of  an initiation of a covered 
merchandise inquiry under paragraph (b)(1)  of this section, int erested parties are permitted one 
opportunity to  submit comments and factual information addressing the initiation.  Within 14 days 
after the filing of such comments, any interested party  is permitted one opportunity to submit 
comment and factual informatio n to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by the  
other interested parties.  
* * * * *  
0 
8. In Sec.  351.301, revise paragraphs (c)(2)(vi) and (c)(3)(iv) to  read as follows:  
Sec. 351.30 1 Time limits for submission of factual information.  
* * * * *  
 (c) * * *  
 (2) * * *  
 (vi) Rebuttal, clarification, or correction of factual information  submitted in support of 
allegations . An interested party is permitted  one opportunity to submit factual information to rebut, 
clarify, or  correct factual information submitted in support of allegations 10 days  after the date such 
factual information is filed with the Department.  
 (3) * * *  
[[Page 67079]]  
 (iv) Rebuttal, clarification, or correction of factual information  submitted to value factor s under 
Sec. 351.408(c) or to measure the  adequacy of remuneration under Sec.  351.511(a)(2) . An G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 20 - 
  interested party  is permitted one opportunity to submit publicly available information  to rebut, 
clarify, or correct such factual information submitted  pursuant  to Sec.  351.408(c) or Sec.  
351.511(a)(2) 10 days after the  date such factual information is filed with the Department . An 
interested party may not submit additional, previously absent -from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information under this para graph  (c)(3)(iv) . Additionally, all factual information submitted 
under this  paragraph (c)(3)(iv) must be accompanied by a written explanation  identifying what 
information already on the record of the ongoing  proceeding the factual information is rebutting , 
clarifying, or  correcting . Information submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual  information 
submitted pursuant to Sec.  351.408(c) will not be used to  value factors under Sec.  351.408(c).  
* * * * *  
0 
9. In Sec.  351.303, revise paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (f)(1) through  (3) to read as follows:  
Sec. 351.30 3 Filing, document identification, format, translation,  service, and certification of 
documents.  
* * * * *  
 (c) * * *  
 (2) * * *  
 (ii) Filing of final business proprietary document ; bracketin g corrections . By the close of 
business one business day after the date  the business proprietary document is filed under paragraph 
(c)(2)(i) of  this section, a person must file the complete final business  proprietary document with 
the Department . The final  business  proprietary document must be identical in all respects to the 
business  proprietary document filed on the previous day except for any  bracketing corrections and 
the omission of the warning "Bracketing of  Business Proprietary Information Is Not Fin al for One 
Business Day  After Date of Filing'' in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(v) of this  section.  
* * * * *  
 (f) Service of copies on other persons --(1) In general . Generally,  a person filing a document 
with the Department simultaneously must  serve a copy of the document on all other persons on the 
service list.  Except as provided in Sec.  351.202(c) (filing of petition), Sec.  351.208(f)(1) (submission 
of proposed suspension agreement) and  paragraph (f)(2) of this section:  
 (i) Service of a public document or public version of a business  proprietary document is 
effectuated on the persons on the public  service list upon the electronic filing of the submission in 
ACCESS,  unless it is filed manually in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this  section, or ACCESS 
is unavailable . If a submission is filed manually or  ACCESS is unavailable, paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of 
this section is  applicable.  
 (ii)(A) Service of a business proprietary document is effectuated  on the persons on the APO 
service list upon the el ectronic filing of  the submission in ACCESS, unless it is filed manually in 
accordance  with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, or ACCESS is unavailable . If a submission is filed 
manually or ACCESS is unavailable, paragraph  (f)(1)(iii) of this section is app licable . In addition, a 
business  proprietary document submitted under the one -day lag rule under  paragraph (c)(2)(i) of 
this section must be served in accordance with  paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section.  
 (B) If the document contains the business proprie tary information  of a person who is not 
included on the APO service list, then service  of such documents on that person cannot be 
effectuated on ACCESS and  the submitter must serve that person its own business proprietary  
information in accordance with par agraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section.  In addition, specific service 
requirements under Sec.  351.306(c)(2)  are applicable.  
 (iii) If service of a public document, public version of a business  proprietary document, or a 
business proprietary document cannot be  effectuated on ACCESS, the submitter must serve the 
recipient by  electronic transmission . Generally, a business proprietary document  must be served by G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 21 - 
  secure electronic transmission . If the submitter is  not able to use such a method, it may use an 
acceptab le alternative  method of service, including personal service, first -class mail, or  electronic 
mail. Electronic mail may only be used as an acceptable  alternative method of service for a business 
proprietary document under  paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) of this section if the business proprietary  
document contains the business proprietary information of either the  submitter or the recipient, with 
the consent of the recipient.  
 (2) Service requirements for certain documents --(i) Request for  review . In addition to the 
certificate of service requirements under  paragraph (f)(3) of this section, an interested party that 
files with  the Department a request for an expedited antidumping review, an  administrative review, 
a new shipper review, or a cha nged circumstances  review must serve a copy of the request on each 
exporter or producer  specified in the request and on the petitioner by the end of the  anniversary 
month or within ten days of filing the request for review,  whichever is later . Service may be made 
by an electronic transmission  method if the interested party that files the request has an electronic  
mail address for the recipient ; otherwise, service must be made by  personal service or first -class 
mail. If the interested party that  files the re quest is unable to locate a particular exporter or  producer, 
or the petitioner, the Secretary may accept the request for  review if the Secretary is satisfied that 
the party made a reasonable  attempt to serve a copy of the request on such person.  
 (ii) Scop e and circumvention . In addition to the certificate of  service requirements under 
paragraph (f)(3) of this section, an  interested party that files with the Department a scope ruling  
application or a request for a circumvention inquiry must serve a copy  of the request on all persons 
included in the annual inquiry service  list in accordance with Sec . Sec. 351.225(n) and 351.226(n),  
respectively.  
 (3) Certificate of service . Each document filed with the Department  must include a certificate 
of service listing each person served  (including agents), the type of document served, and the date 
and method of service on each person . The Secretary may refuse to accept  any document that is 
not accompanied by a certificate of service.  
* * * * *  
0 
10. In Sec.  351.304, revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read as  follows:  
Sec. 351.30 4 Establishing business proprietary treatment of  information.  
* * * * *  
 (c) * * *  
 (1) A person filing a submission that contains information for  which business proprietary 
treatment  is claimed must also file a public  version of the submission . The public version must be 
filed on the  filing deadline for the business proprietary document . If the business  proprietary 
document was filed under the one -day lag rule (see Sec.  351.303(c)(2)) , the public version and the 
final business proprietary  document must be filed on the first business day after the filing  deadline . 
The public version must contain a summary of the bracketed  information in sufficient detail to permit 
a reasonable understan ding of the substance of the information . If the submitting person claims  that 
summarization is not possible, the claim must be  
[[Page 67080]]  
accompanied by a full explanation of the reasons supporting that claim.  Generally, numerical data 
will be conside red adequately summarized if  grouped or presented in terms of indices or figures 
within 10  per cent  of the actual figure . If an individual portion of the numerical data is  voluminous, 
at least one  per cent  representative of that portion must be  summarized . A submitter should not 
create a public summary of business  proprietary information of another person.  
 (2) If a submitting party discovers that it has failed to bracket  information correctly, the 
submitter may file a complete, corrected  business proprieta ry document along with the public 
version (see Sec.  351.303(c)(2)(ii) through (iii)) . At the close of business on the day  on which the G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 22 - 
  public version of a submission is due under paragraph  (c)(1) of this section, however, the bracketing 
of business proprietary  information in the original business proprietary document or, if a  corrected 
version is timely filed, the corrected business proprietary  document will become final . Once 
bracketing has become final, the  Secretary will not accept any further cor rections to the bracketing 
of information in a submission, and the Secretary will treat non -bracketed  information as public 
information.  
* * * * *  
0 
11. In Sec.  351.305:  
0 
a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a);  
0 
b. Revise paragraph (b)(2) and ( 3), and remove paragraph (b)(4) ; and 
0 
c. Revise paragraph (c).  
 The revisions read as follows:  
Sec. 351.30 5 Access to business proprietary information.  
 (a) The administrative protective order . The Secretary will place  an administrative protective 
order o n the record as follows : within two  business days after the day on which a petition is filed or 
an investigation is self -initiated ; within five business days after the  day on which a request for a 
new shipper review is properly filed in  accordance with Sec . Sec. 351.214 and 351.303, an 
application for a  scope ruling is properly filed in accordance with Sec . Sec. 351.225  and 351.303, or 
a request for a circumvention inquiry is properly filed  in accordance with Sec . Sec. 351.226 and 
351.303 ; within five busin ess days after the day on which a request for a changed circumstances  
review is properly filed in accordance with Sec . Sec. 351.216 and  351.303 or a changed 
circumstances review is self -initiated ; or within  five business days after initiating any other segment 
of a proceeding.  
The administrative protective order will require the authorized  applicant to:  
* * * * *  
 (b) * * *  
 (2) A representative of a party to the proceeding may apply for  access to business proprietary 
information under the administrative  protective order by submitting an electronic application 
available in  ACCESS at https://access.trade.gov  (Form ITA -367) to the Secretary . The electronic 
application will be filed and served in ACCESS upon  submission . Form ITA -367 must identify the 
applicant and the segment of  the proceeding involved, state the basis for eligibility of the  applicant 
for access to business proprietary information, and state the  agreemen t of the applicant to be bound 
by the administrative protective  order . Form ITA -367 must be accompanied by a certification that 
the application is consistent with Form ITA -367 and an acknowledgment that  any discrepancies will 
be interpreted in a manner con sistent with Form  ITA-367. An applicant must apply to receive all 
business proprietary  information on the record of the segment of a proceeding in question  but may 
waive service of business proprietary information it does not  wish to receive from other parties to 
the proceeding.  
 (3) To minimize the disruption caused by late applications, an  application should be filed before 
the first response to the initial  questionnaire has been submitted . Where justified, however,  
applications may be filed up t o the date on which the case briefs are  due. 
 (c) Approval of access under administrative protective order;  administrative protective order 
service list ; service of earlier -filed business proprietary submissions. (1) The Secretary will grant 
access  to a qu alified applicant by including the name of the applicant on an  administrative protective 
order service list . Access normally will be  granted within five days of receipt of the application unless 
there is  a question regarding the eligibility of the applican t to receive  access . In that case, the 
Secretary will decide whether to grant the  applicant access within 30 days of receipt of the G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 23 - 
  application . The Secretary will provide by the most expeditious means available the  administrative 
protective order service list to parties to the  proceeding on the day the service list is issued or 
amended.  
 (2) After the Secretary approves an application, the authorized  applicant may request service 
of earlier -filed business proprietary  submissions of the other parties that a re no longer available in  
ACCESS.  
 (i) For an application that is approved before the first response  to the initial questionnaire is 
submitted, the submitting party must  serve the authorized applicant those submissions within two 
business  days of the reque st. Service must be made in accordance with section  351.303(f)(1)(iii) . 
A certificate of service is not required.  
 (ii) For an application that is approved after the first response  to the initial questionnaire is 
submitted, the submitting party must  serve  the authorized applicant those submissions within five 
business  days of the request . Service must be made in accordance with section  351.303(f)(1)(iii) . 
A certificate of service is not required . Any authorized applicant who filed the application after the  
first response  to the initial questionnaire is submitted will be liable for costs  associated with the 
additional production and service of business  proprietary information already on the record.  
* * * * *  
0 
12. In Sec.  351.306, revise paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:  
Sec. 351.30 6 Use of business proprietary information.  
* * * * *  
 (c) * * *  
 (2) If a party to a proceeding is not represented, or its  representative is not an authorized 
applicant, the submitter of a  document containing that party's busine ss proprietary information must  
serve that party or its representative, if applicable, with a version  of the document that contains 
only that party's business proprietary  information consistent with Sec.  351.303(f)(1)(iii) . The 
document must  not contain th e business proprietary information of other parties.  
* * * * *  
0 
13. In Sec.  351.404, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:  
Sec. 351.40 4 Selection of the market to be used as the basis for  normal value.  
* * * * *  
 (d) Allegations concerning market viabi lity and the basis for  determining a price -based normal 
value . In an antidumping investigation  or review, allegations regarding market viability or the 
exceptions in  paragraph (c)(2) of this section, must be filed, with all supporting  factual information, 
in accordance with Sec.  351.301(c)(2)(i).  
* * * * *  
0 
14. In Sec.  351.408:  
0 
a. Revise paragraph (c)(2).  
0 
b. Remove paragraph (c)(3) and redesignate paragraph (c)(4) as  paragraph (c)(3).  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
- 24 - 
  [[Page 67081]]  
 The revisions read as follows:  
Sec. 351.40 8 Calculation of normal value of merchandise from  nonmarket economy countries.  
* * * * *  
 (c) * * *  
 (2) Valuation in a single country . The Secretary normally will  value all factors in a single 
surrogate country.  
 (3) Manufacturing overhead, general expenses , and profit . For manufacturing overhead, 
general expenses, and profit, the Secretary  normally will use non -proprietary information gathered 
from producers  of identical or comparable merchandise in the surrogate country.  
[FR Doc. 2023 -21516 Filed 9 -28-23; 8:45 am]  
BILLING C ODE 3510-DS-P 
__________