G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15  
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15  
 
10 October 2013  
(13-5512)  Page: 1/10  
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 30 September 2013, 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:  
Extension of Time Limits, 78 Fed. Reg. 57790 (September 20, 2013) 
 The United States is modifying its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping (AD) and countervail ing duty (CVD) proceedings before the U.S. 
Department of Commerce (Commerce). The modifica tion clarifies that parties may request an 
extension of time limits before any time limit established under Part 351 of the regulations expires. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone 
submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which Commerce will grant untimely-filed 
requests for the extension of time limits.  
This rule is effective October 21, 2013, and w ill apply to all proceedings or segments of 
proceedings (e.g., investigations and administrative reviews) initiated on or after October 21, 2013.  
 
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2013)] [Rules and Regulations] 
[Pages 57790-57796] 
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [ http://www.gpo.gov/ ] 
[FR Doc No: 2013-22853] 
 
============================================================= --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 International Trade Administration 
 
19 CFR Part 351  
[Docket No. 121231747-3659-01] 
RIN 0625-AA94  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Extension of Time Limits 
 AGENCY: Import Administration, Inte rnational Trade Administration,  
Department of Commerce. 
 
ACTION: Final rule.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is modifying its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) 
proceedings. The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before 
any time limit established under Part 351 expires. Th is modification also requires that an extension 
request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances 
under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits.  
 DATES: Effective date: October 21, 2013. Applicabili ty date: This rule will apply to all segments 
initiated on or after October 21, 2013.  
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna Theiss at (202) 482-5052.   
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  
 Background  
 
On January 16, 2013, the Department published a proposed modification of its regulation at 
19 CFR 351.302, which concerns the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD 
proceedings. See Modification of Regulation Regarding the Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 3367 
(January 16, 2013) (Proposed Rule). The Department received several comments on the Proposed Rule and has addressed those comments below. The Proposed Rule, comments received, and this final rule can be accessed using the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.Regulations.gov  
under Docket Number ITA-2012-0006. After analyzing and carefully considering all of the 
comments that the Department received in response to the Proposed Rule, the Department has adopted the modification with certain changes, and is amending its regulations accordingly.  
 
Explanation of Regulatory Provision and Final Modification   
Prior to this modification, 19 CFR 351.302(c) provided that a party may request an extension 
before the applicable time limit specified under section 351.301 expires. The prior rule provides 
that a request for an extension must be in writing, filed in accordance with the relevant regulatory provision, and state the reasons for the request. If the Secretary does not exercise his discretion 
to extend the time limit, which must be approv ed in writing, section 351.302(d) sets forth the 
procedures for the rejection of untimely-filed or unsolicited material.   
The Department is modifying section 351.302(c) to provide additional certainty to parties 
participating in AD and CVD proceedings in two important areas. First, the final rule will clarify that parties may request an extension of any time limit established by Part 351, rather than limiting 
extension requests to time limits for submissions established under section 351.301. Prior to this 
modification, the Department's regulations did not permit parties to request extensions of time 
limits for submissions other than for those established in section 351.301. Thus, this modification makes explicit that parties may request extensions for any time limit established under Part 351. 
This modification is also consistent with section 351.302(b), which provides that the Secretary 
may, for good cause, extend any time limit established under this part.   
Further, the Department is modifying section 351.302(c) to clarify and confirm the specific 
circumstances under which the Department will consider untimely-filed extension requests. Prior to this modification, the regulation did not account for extension requests filed after the time limit; 
section 351.302(c) merely stated that "before the applicable time limit expires . . . a party may 
request an extension.'' In the vast majority of situations, parties should be able to request an extension early enough to provide an adequate opportunity for the Department to consider the request before the time limit expires. The Depart ment is therefore modifying 19 CFR 351.302(c) to 
specify that an untimely-filed extension request will not be considered unless the party G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 
 
- 3 - 
 
  demonstrates that extraordinary circumstances exist. Only if the Department determines that the 
party has demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances exist will the Department then consider whether the party has demonstrated that good cause exists for allowing an extension of the time limit pursuant to section 351.302(b).  
 
Prior to the modification, the Department frequently encountered the situation in which a party filed an extension request so close to the time limit that the Department did not have the 
opportunity to respond to the request before the time limit expires. These last-minute extension 
requests often resulted in confusion among the parties, difficulties in the Department's organization of its work, and undue expenditures of Departmental resources, which impeded the Department's ability to conduct AD and CVD proc eedings in a timely and orderly manner. After 
consideration of the comments, and as discussed below, the Department considers that an 
extension request is untimely if it is filed after the applicable time limit expires. The Department has also determined that there will be a separate standard for requests for the extension of time 
limits for submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, such as case and rebuttal 
briefs, pursuant to section 351.309. The Department finds that this separate standard is useful to avoid a circumstance in which, for instance, one party requests a last-minute extension of the time 
limit to file its case brief, with the result that it may review other parties' timely-filed briefs and 
thus obtain an advantage over the other parties. Thus, the Department is modifying 19 CFR 351.302(c) to specify that an extension request will be considered untime ly if it is received 
after the applicable time limit expires or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. These 
modifications will diminish the cumulative impact of last-minute extension requests on the parties 
and the Department.   
Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule  
 The Department received five comments on its Proposed Rule. Below is a summary of the 
comments, grouped by issue category, followed by the Department's response.  
 1. Extension Requests for All Time Limits Established by Part 351   
All commenters support modifying 19 CFR 351.302(c) to clarify that parties may request an 
extension of any time limit established by Part 351 ("Antidumping and Countervailing Duties''), rather than limiting extension requests to subm issions under section 351.301 as in the prior rule. 
One commenter noted that this modification codifies existing practice.  
 Response: The Department agrees. The final rule specifies that parties may request an extension 
of any time limit established by Part 351.  
 2. Untimely Extension Requests in General   
In the Proposed Rule, the Department requested comment on whether the term "untimely'' should 
include extension requests that are made very clos e to the applicable time limit. For example, an 
untimely-filed extension request could be defined as one that is received less than 48 or 24 hours 
before the applicable time limit expires. One commenter suggests that the term "untimely'' 
includes any request that is filed less than 24 hours before the applicable time limit expires. Another commenter suggests that the term "untimely'' includes any time limit that is filed less 
than 48 hours before the applicable time limit expires. Another commenter argues that a time 
limit, after which time the extension request is unt imely, can be arbitrary,  given the variances in 
the amount of time the Department sets for submissions and the types of submissions. For 
example, a specific cut-off point for requesting extensions may be unreasonable for a submission 
that has a three-day time limit. Citing such concerns, several commenters argue that the term 
"untimely'' should be defined as an extension request which is received after the applicable time limit expires. One commenter alleges that the Department warns parties not to file extension 
requests "too early.'' 
Response: A standard that defines "untimely'' as 24 or 48 hours before the time limit expires could 
be unreasonable or difficult to administer because of submissions with short time limits and the 
effect of intervening weekends or holidays on the 24- or 48-hour time period. Therefore, we have 
determined that the term "untimely'' in the final rule is defined as an extension request that is received after the applicable time limit expires. This standard will apply to submissions that are not due from multiple parties simultaneously or, if the same time limit applies to multiple parties, G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 
 
- 4 - 
 
  there is no advantage to be obtained in being able to review other parties' submissions before the 
party files its own submission. Examples include questionnaire responses, supplemental questionnaire responses, and separate rate certifications and applications.  
Concerning when the time limit expires, if a submission is due on Monday, December 2, 2013, for 
example, the submission must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on that date.
1 If a party 
requests an extension of that time limit, the pa rty's extension request must be received before 
5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 2, 2013, or it will be considered untimely. On the other hand, if 
the Department specifies that a submission is du e on Monday, December 2, 2013, at 12:00 noon, 
the party's extension request must be received before 12:00 noon on Monday, December 2, 2013, or it will be considered untimely.  
Parties should be aware that the likelihood of the Department granting an extension will decrease 
the closer the extension request is filed to the applicable time limit because the Department must 
have time to consider the extension request and decide on its disposition. Parties should not assume that they will receive an extension of a time limit if they have not received a response 
from the Department. For submissions that are due at 5:00 p.m., if the Department is not able to 
notify the party requesting the extension of the disposition of the request by 5:00 p.m., then the 
submission would be due by the opening of bu siness (8:30 a.m.) on the next work day. See 
19 CFR 351.103(b).  
 The Department intends to adhere strictly to 19 CFR 351.302(c), which provides that the Department must approve extension requests in writing. However, for requests that are filed very 
close to the time limit, the Department may issue a verbal response to a party's extension request 
before the applicable time limit expires and issue a written response as soon as practicable. Concerning one commenter's anecdote that Depa rtment officials have warned against filing 
extension requests "too early,'' the Department notes that the earlier an extension request is filed, 
the more likely the Department may consider the extension request, decide on its disposition, and inform the requesting party of its decision before the time limit expires. This will provide certainty 
and reduce confusion for the parties.  
 3. Untimely Extension Requests for Submissions That Are Due From Multiple Parties Simultaneously  
 
In the Proposed Rule, the Department also requested comment on whether there should be a separate standard for extension requests for submissions that are due from multiple parties 
simultaneously, such as case and rebuttal briefs, pursuant to section 351.309. The commenter 
that suggested that extension requests should be filed 48 hours before the applicable time limit expires to be considered timely also suggests that, for submissions that are due from multiple 
parties simultaneously, the extension requests should be filed 48 hours before the applicable time 
limit expires to be considered timely. One comment er suggests that a requirement that extension 
requests be filed 48 hours before the time limit expires would be difficult for rebuttal briefs, which often have a five-day time limit. Another commenter  argued that extension requests for case and 
rebuttal briefs may be considered untimely if they are filed less than 48 hours before the 
applicable time limit expires because these time limits are set well in advance of the deadlines.  
Response: As with the second issue, above, the commenters have identified reasonable concerns 
with the Department's establishment of a time lim it for the extension request which precedes the 
scheduled time limit for the submission. We understand these concerns, but find that a separate, 
earlier time limit for extension requests for submissions that are due from multiple parties 
simultaneously is appropriate to avoid situations in which one party requests a last-minute extension of the time limit to file its case brief,  for instance, with the result that it may review 
other parties' timely-filed briefs and thus obtain an advantage over the other parties. Although the 
Department used case and rebuttal briefs as exam ples of the types of submissions that would be 
subject to this standard in the Proposed Rule, this  standard will apply to submissions that are due 
from multiple parties simultaneously where one party may obtain an advantage by reviewing other 
parties' submissions before the party files its own submission. Examples include: (1) Case and 
rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under section 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under section 351.511(a)(2), 
filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 
                                               
1 See 19 CFR 351.303(b). G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 
 
- 5 - 
 
  19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and 
surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. 
The Department has adopted a standard under which an extension request will be considered 
untimely if it is not filed by 10:00 a.m. on the due date. For example, if a submission is due on 
Monday, December 2, 2013, and a party requests an extension of that time limit, the party's 
extension request must be received before 10:00 a.m. on Monday, December 2, 2013, or it will be 
considered untimely. With a uniform 10:00 a.m. deadline, the Department will not be required to 
decide repeatedly whether an extension request is untimely. It will also provide adequate opportunity for the Department to decide on the di sposition of the extension request, and, if the 
Department grants the extension request, to inform all parties subject to the time limit that the 
time limit has been extended. This will ensure that all parties subject to the time limit are made 
aware of the extension before the time li mit expires, and to plan accordingly.  
 
Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time by which 
extension requests will be considered untimely. For example, if a submission is due on Friday, 
December 6, 2013, at 12:00 noon, the Department may determine that extension requests must 
be received by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2013, or they will be considered untimely. In 
that case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the time limit that extension requests must be received by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2013, or they will be considered untimely. In addition, the Department intends to set the time by which 
extension requests will be considered untimely for the submission of quantity and value 
questionnaires on a case-by-case basis.   
4. Extraordinary Circumstances  
 With the exception of one commenter that thought that a "good cause'' standard should apply to 
untimely-filed extension requests, the commenters agree with an "extraordinary circumstances'' 
standard for untimely-filed extension requests, which is higher than "good cause.'' The comments suggested definitions, such as a situation that did not exist, or about which the requestor was unaware, prior to the beginning of the untimely peri od, and generally requested clarity as to what 
constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, such as  whether technical difficulties with IA ACCESS 
constitute extraordinary circumstances.   
Response: We have not adopted the commenter's  proposal that an untimely-filed extension 
request will not be considered unless the party demonstrates that good cause exists. In most situations, a party should be able to request an extension before the applicable time limit expires, 
because a party should be aware of the circumst ances requiring an extension. In addition, the 
standard under which the Department evaluates ti mely-filed extension requests is "good cause.'' 
See 19 CFR 351.302(b). It would be counterproductive to set the same standard for untimely extension requests because parties would have no incentive for filing timely extension requests. 
Concerning the definition of extraordinary circum stances, the Department has determined that an 
extraordinary circumstance is an unexpected even t that: (1) Could not have been prevented if 
reasonable measures had been taken and (2) precludes a party or its representative from timely 
filing an extension request through all reason able means. For any untimely-filed extension 
request, it is the party's responsibility to demo nstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist, and 
the Department will make a determination whether extraordinary circumstances exist based on the 
specific facts, taking into account whether reasonab le means could have been used to file a timely 
request or if reasonable measures could have been taken to prevent the unexpected event from occurring. Examples of extraordinary circumstances include a natural disaster, riot, war, force majeure, or medical emergency. Examples that are unlikely to be considered extraordinary 
circumstances include insufficient resources, inattentiveness, or the inability of a party's 
representative to access the Internet on the day on which the submission was due.   
Concerning whether problems with IA ACCESS constitute "extraordinary circumstances,'' a 
technical failure of IA ACCESS generally is not an extraordinary circumstance. If IA ACCESS is 
"unable to accept filings continuously or intermittently over the course of any period of time 
greater than one hour between 12:00 noon and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time or for any duration of 
time between 4:31 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, then a person may manually file the document in the APO/Dockets Unit.'' 19 CFR 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(B). The IA ACCESS Handbook states that "any electronic submissions that are postponed due to a technical failure of the IA G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 
 
- 6 - 
 
  ACCESS system may not be made without having firs t obtained an extension of the due date from 
the applicable AD/CVD Office.'' See Handbook on  Electronic Filing Procedures, available at: 
https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20o n%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf . 
Thus, in general, a technical failure of IA ACCESS will not be considered an extraordinary 
circumstance. However, in certain, limited situat ions, the Department may find that a technical 
failure of IA ACCESS is an extraordinary circumstance if, for instance, the party and its representative are located outside of the DC metropolitan area and IA ACCESS is continuously 
unavailable before the submission is due.  
 5. Notice of Extension Request   
Two commenters suggest that parties to a proceeding should be given notice before a party makes 
an extension request. One commenter suggests requ iring the party seeking the request to notify 
the other parties that it is requesting an extensio n as is often done in practice; another commenter 
suggests that, if a party requests an extension less than 48 hours before the applicable time limit 
expires, the party must seek consent from the ot her parties before requesting an extension. One 
commenter argued that all extension requests should be filed separately from other submissions to 
put the other parties to a proceeding on notice.  
 Response: The Department has not adopted the prop osals concerning notice of extension requests 
because it is the responsibility of the Department to set and manage the schedule of the segment 
of the proceeding, not that of the parties to the proceeding. The Department also finds that it 
would be difficult to monitor whether the party requesting the extension had notified the other parties before requesting an extension and this could delay the Department's disposition of the 
extension request. Concerning the suggestion that extension requests should be filed separately, 
the Department agrees. An extension request which is filed independently of factual information or argument is likely to come to the Department's attention more quickly, thus increasing the chance 
that the Department will be able to efficiently respond to the extension request. We have adopted 
this proposal and have modified 19 CFR 351.302(c) to require that an extension request be filed in a separate, stand-alone submission.   
6. Changes to 19 CFR 351.301  
 One commenter argues that any changes to 19 CFR 351.302 must be considered in light of a 
complete overhaul of 19 CFR 351.301. The comment er argues that there are numerous problems 
with the Department's time limits, such as initial questionnaire responses that are due less than thirty days from the date of receipt of the questionnaire, "in contravention of {World Trade 
Organization (WTO){time} protocols.'' The commenter argues that the Department should provide 
additional time for the submission of supplementa l questionnaire responses, and case and rebuttal 
briefs. The commenter urges the Department to write better questions and to limit overlapping deadlines for submissions. The commenter argues that some time limits are unreasonably short, 
so requiring a party to file an extension request 72 hours before the applicable time limit expires 
may not be reasonable under any circumstances. The commenter is concerned that the number of extension requests may increase.  
 
Response: The Department has not adopted this  proposal. The Department is not modifying 
section 351.301 or section 351.309, and in fact, section 351.301 was recently modified, after 
notice and comment, to improve the Department's procedures concerning the submission of 
factual information. See Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013). As to the commenter's argument that the Department's time limits provide less than thirty days for the submission of factual information in 
questionnaire responses in contravention of "WTO protocols,'' the commenter is incorrect: 
section 351.301(c)(1)(i) provides that initial questionnaire responses are due 30 days from the date of the initial questionnaire; only if the questionnaire is divided into separate sections is the 
time limit for individual sections shortened. This is consistent with the WTO AD and Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures Agreements. Finally, the Proposed Rule did not suggest that an extension request may be considered untimely if it were received 72 hours before the applicable time limit 
expired; rather, the Department requested comment on whether an extension request may be 
considered untimely if it were received either 24 or 48 hours before the applicable time limit expired. The Department does not agree with the commenter's concern that extension requests will increase as a result of the final rule.  
 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 
 
- 7 - 
 
  7. No Extensions for Certain Submissions  
 One commenter suggests that the Department refuse  to consider extension requests after the time 
limit expires for certain important issues that are controlled by one party, such as market viability 
claims, cost allegations, major input allegations and upstream subsidy allegations. See 
19 CFR 351.301(c)(2).   
Response: The Department has not adopted this proposal. The Department has the discretion to 
extend any time limit established under Part 351 for good cause, and will not limit its discretion.   Changes From the Proposed Rule  
 
In the final rule, the Department has added "in a separate, stand- alone submission'' to 19 CFR 351.302(c). The Department has added 19 CFR 351.302(c)(1), to specify that an extension 
request will be considered untimely if it is received after the applicable time limit expires or as 
otherwise specified by the Secretary, and 19 CFR 351.302(c)(2), to define "extraordinary circumstance.''  
 
Classification   Executive Order 12866  
 
This rule has been determined to be not sign ificant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.  
 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  
 The Department has prepared the following Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  
 
1. A Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule   This final rule is intended to alter the Department's regulation for AD and CVD proceedings; 
specifically, to modify the regulation concerning the extension of time limits. The final rule would 
clarify that parties may request the extension of any time limit established under Part 351, as opposed to the prior rule, which only addresses requests for the extension of time limits specified 
under section 351.301.  
 The final rule would also establish an "extraordinary circumstances'' standard by which the 
Department would consider untimely filed extension requests because the prior rule only 
addresses extension requests that are filed before the applicable time limit for the submission expires. The final rule also establishes that an extension request must be filed in a separate, stand-alone submission.  
 
The legal basis for this rule is 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. No other Federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict 
with this rule.  
 2. A Statement of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of th e Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a 
Statement of Any Changes in the Proposed  Rule as a Result of Such Comments  
 The Department received no comments concerning the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  
 
3. The Response of the Agency to Any Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in Response to the Proposed Rule, and a Detailed Statement 
of Any Change Made to the Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a Result of the Comments  
 The Department received no comments from th e Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.  
 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 
 
- 8 - 
 
  4. A Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply or 
an Explanation of Why No Such Estimate Is Available   The final rule will apply to any interested part y, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended, requesting extension of time limits for the submissions in AD and CVD 
proceedings. This could include any party participating in an AD or CVD proceeding, including exporters and producers of merchandise subject to  AD and CVD proceedings and their affiliates, 
importers of such merchandise, domestic producers of like products, and foreign governments. 
However, it will only apply to those parties that request an extension of time limits in an AD or CVD proceeding.   
Exporters and producers of subject merchandise ar e rarely U.S. companies. Some producers and 
exporters of subject merchandise do have U.S. af filiates, some of which may be considered small 
entities under the appropriate SBA small business size standard. The Department is not able to 
estimate the number of U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters and producers that may be considered 
small entities, but anticipates, based on its experi ence in these proceedings, that the number will 
not be substantial.  
 
Importers may be U.S. or foreign companies, and some of these entities may be considered small 
entities under the appropriate SBA small business size standard. The Department does not anticipate that the final rule will impact a substantial number of small importers because importers 
of subject merchandise who are not also producers and exporters (or their affiliates) rarely submit 
factual information in the course of the Department's AD and CVD proceedings, and those that do tend to be larger entities.  
 
Some domestic producers of like products may be considered small entities under the appropriate SBA small business size standard. Although it is unable to estimate the number of producers that 
may be considered small entities, the Department does not anticipate that the number affected by 
the final rule will be substantial. Frequently, dome stic producers that bring a petition account for a 
large amount of the domestic production within an industry, so it is unlikely that these domestic producers will be small entities.  
 
In sum, while recognizing that exporter and produc er affiliates, importers, and domestic producers 
that submit information in AD and CVD proceedings  will likely include some small entities, the 
Department, based on its experience with these proceedings and the participating parties, does 
not anticipate that the final rule would impact a substantial number of small entities.   
5. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Re cordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 
of the Final Rule   The final rule will require a party submitting an untimely-filed extension request to demonstrate 
that extraordinary circumstances exist. This will not amount to a significant burden. Under normal 
circumstances, a party should be able to submit its extension request in a timely manner because an extension request is a straightforward and usually concise document, identifying only the 
material to be submitted, the current time limit,  the requested extension of that time limit, and 
the reason for the extension request. In other words, there is no reason to submit extension requests in an untimely manner except under extraordinary circumstances. Thus, if a party files its 
extension request in an untimely manner, the extraordinary circumstances for submitting the 
extension request in an untimely manner will be readily available to the party making the untimely extension request.   
6. A Description of the Steps the Agency Has Take n To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact 
on Small Entities Consistent With the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the Factual, Policy, and Legal Reas ons for Selecting the Alternative Adopted in the 
Final Rule and Why Each of the Other Significant Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the 
Agency Which Affect the Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected   
The Department has taken steps to minimize the si gnificant economic impact on small entities. As 
discussed above, all parties may request an ex tension pursuant to section 351.302, and the 
Department will continue to grant extensions of time limits to the extent that they are warranted and deadlines for the segment permit. Further, the Department considered significant alternatives 
to the final rule. The alternatives are:  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 
 
- 9 - 
 
  (1) Maintaining the current rule, which does not address extension requests for time limits 
established in provisions other than Sec. 351.301, or untimely-filed extension requests; 
 
(2) Modifying the rule to establish that parties can request an extension of any time limit 
established under this part, and that untimely-filed extension requests will not be considered unless the party demonstrates that good cause exists; 
 
(3) Modifying the rule to establish that parties can request an extension of any time limit 
established under this part and that untimely-filed extension requests will not be considered; and  
 
(4) Modifying the standard for "untimely'' to require extension requests to be filed 24 or 
48 hours before the time limit expires.  
 
The Department does not anticipate that the first alternative will have a significant economic impact on small entities. The Department determined that maintaining the current rule and not 
addressing extension requests for time limits other than those established under section 351.301, 
and not including a standard concerning untimely-filed extension requests, will not serve the objective of the proposed rule. If the Department maintained the current rule, then there would be 
no standard under which the Department would consider untimely-filed extension requests. This 
would not provide certainty to parties participating in AD and CVD proceedings, and would not 
address the administrative issues that the Department has encountered with untimely-filed extension requests. Thus, although this alternative was considered, it was not chosen.  
 
The Department also considered modifying the rule to clarify that a party may request an extension of any time limit established under this part and to establish that the Department will 
not consider an untimely-filed extension request unless the party demonstrates that good cause 
exists, described as alternative two. As discussed in the consideration of its preferred alternative, the clarification that a party may request an extension request of any time limit established by this part serves the objectives of the proposed rule because it makes clear that 19 CFR 351.302(c) 
applies to extension requests for any time limit established by this part.  
 The Department next considered a "good cause'' standard for untimely-filed extension requests. As 
with the "extraordinary circumstances'' standard included in the final rule, this alternative 
establishes a standard under which untimely-filed extension requests will be considered, which is missing from the current rule. The disadvantage to this alternative is that the "good cause'' exists 
as the standard by which the Department already considers timely-filed extension requests under 
the current rule. Therefore, a party would have no reason to submit its extension request in a timely manner, because the same standard would apply as if the extension request were filed in an untimely manner. This will not serve the objectiv e of the proposed rule to avoid confusion, will 
perpetuate the current difficulties in the Department's organization of its work, and will perpetuate 
the undue expenditure of Departmental resources in addressing extension requests. Thus, this 
alternative was not chosen.  
 
The Department also considered modifying the rule to clarify that a party may request an extension of any time limit established under this part and to establish that the Department will 
not consider any untimely-filed extension requests, described as alternative three. The clarification 
that an extension request may be of any time limit established by Part 351 serves the objectives of the proposed rule because it makes clear that 19 CFR 351.302(c) applies to extension requests for any time limit established by Part 351. However, the Department does recognize that 
extraordinary, extenuating circumstances can and do arise which may prevent a party from 
submitting a timely- filed extension request, and, th erefore, it considers this alternative to be too 
inflexible to permit the Department to effectively and fairly administer the AD and CVD laws. Thus, 
it has not been chosen.  
 Modifying the standard for "untimely'' submissions does not impose any significant burden on the 
parties in AD or CVD proceedings. However, there are some concerns with this approach, 
including: (a) the effect on the 24- or 48-hour pe riod if there is an intervening weekend and/or 
holiday; and (b) submissions with short time lim its. If the Department were to adopt this 
alternative, it would need to establish criteria to address these issues. For example, if the time 
limit is less than five days, then the extension request is untimely if it is filed less than eight hours G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 
 
- 10 - 
 
  before the time limit expires. The Department recognizes that the 24- or 48-hour policy has the 
potential to create some of the same problems regarding weekends and holidays as the current rule, and in the case of rebuttal briefs and othe r submissions with short deadlines, it could prove 
difficult to comply with. Thus, it has not been chosen.  
 
Small Business Compliance Guide   
In accordance with Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, the agency has published a guide to assist small entities in complying with the rule.  
 Paperwork Reduction Act  
 
This rule does not require a collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).  
 
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351   
Administrative practice and procedure, Antidump ing, Business and industry, Cheese, Confidential 
business information, Countervailing duties, Freedom of information, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.   
Dated: September 13, 2013.  
Paul Piquado,  Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.  
 
For the reasons stated, 19 CFR Part 351 is amended as follows:   
PART 351--ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES  
 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.   
2. In Sec. 351.302, revise paragraph (c) as follows:  
 Sec. 351.302 Extension of time limits; return of untimely filed or unsolicited material.  
 
* * * * *   
(c) Requests for extension of specific time limit. Before the applicable time limit established 
under this part expires, a party may request an extension pursuant to paragraph (b) of this 
section. An untimely filed extension request will not be considered unless the party demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance exists. The request must be in writing, in a separate, 
stand-alone submission, filed consistent with Sec.  351.303, and state the reasons for the request. 
An extension granted to a party must be approved in writing.  
 
(1) An extension request will be considered untimely if it is received after the applicable 
time limit expires or as otherwise specified by the Secretary.   (2) An extraordinary circumstance is an unexpected event that:  
 
 (i) Could not have been prevented if reasonable measures had been taken, and   (ii) Precludes a party or its representative from timely filing an extension request 
through all reasonable means.  
 [FR Doc. 2013-22853 Filed 9-19-13; 8:45 am]  
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P  
  
__________