WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 8 December 2011 
 
(11-6368) 
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 23 November 2011, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of the United States. 
 
_______________ 
 
  Pursuant to Article 32.6 of the Agreemen t 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:  
(1) Modification of Regulations Regarding th e Practice of Accepting Bonds During the 
Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and C ountervailing Duty Investigations, 76 Fed. 
Reg. 61042 (Oct. 3, 2011) 
  The attached document amends U.S. regulati ons governing the effect of an affirmative 
preliminary determination in antidumping and count ervailing duty proceedings to establish that the 
provisional measures will normally take the form of a cash deposit.    
(2) Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:  Electronic Filing Procedures;  
Administrative Protective Order Procedures:  Fi nal Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 39263 (July 6, 2011) 
  The attached document amends U.S. regulati ons governing the submission of information to 
the U.S. Department of Commerce in antidumpi ng and countervailing du ty proceedings.  The 
amendments incorporate changes resulting from the U.S. Department of Commerce's implementation 
of an electronic filing and documents management program.  
(3) Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:  Interim Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 7491 (Feb. 10, 2011) and 
Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:  Supplemen tal Interim Final Rule and Request for 
Comments, 76 Fed. Reg. 54697 (Sept. 2, 2011) 
  The attached documents amend U.S. regula tions governing the certification of factual 
information submitted to the U.S. Department of Commerce by a person or his or her representative 
during antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings .  The amendments intend to strengthen the G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 2 
 
 
  current certification requirements and ensure that parties and their counsel are aware of potential 
consequences for false certifications.     In addition, the supplemental interim final rule  concerns the certifications required of foreign 
governments and allows foreign gove rnments to submit certifications in either the format that was 
used prior to the effective date of the 10 February  2011 Interim Final Rule or in the format provided 
in the Interim Final Rule.    
 
  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 3 
 
 
  [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2011)] 
[Rules and Regulations] [Pages 61042-61046] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] 
[FR Doc No: 2011-24666] 
  ======================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 
International Trade Administration 
 19 CFR Part 351 
 [Docket No. 110420253-1577-02] RIN 0625-AA88  
Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practi ce of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional 
Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations 
 
AGENCY:   Import Administration, International Trad e Administration, Department of Commerce. 
 ACTION:  Final rule. 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 SUMMARY:  The Department of Commerce (the Departme nt) is amending its re gulations governing 
the effect of an affirmative preliminary dete rmination in antidumping or countervailing duty 
proceedings to establish that the provisional measure s will normally take the form of a cash deposit.  
Requiring that provisional measures will normally ta ke the form of a cash deposit will help to 
strengthen the administration of the nation's anti dumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) laws 
by making importers directly responsible  for the payment of AD and CVD duties. 
 DATES:   This Final Rule is effective November 2, 201 1.  This rule will apply to all investigations 
initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after this effective date. 
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :  Thomas Futtner at (202) 482-3814, Mark Ross at 
(202) 482-4794, or Joanna Theiss at (202) 482-5052. 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   
Background  
 On April 26, 2011, the Department published a proposed modification to its regulations 
regarding the practice of accepting bonds during the provisional measures period in AD and 
CVD investigations.  See Modification of Regula tions Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds 
During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidu mping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 
76 FR 23225 (April 26, 2011) (Proposed Rule).  The Proposed Rule explained the Department's 
proposal to modify its regulations to establish th at the provisional measures during an AD or CVD 
investigation will normally take the form of a cash deposit.  The Department received numerous 
comments on the Proposed Rule and has addressed these comments below.  The Proposed Rule, G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 4 
 
 
  comments received, and this Final Rule can be accessed using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
http://www.Regulations.gov  under Docket Number ITA-2011-0005.  After analyzing and carefully 
considering all of the comments that the Departme nt received in response to the Proposed Rule, the 
Department has adopted the modification and amende d its regulations to establish that the provisional 
measures during an AD or CVD investigation will normally take the form of a cash deposit. 
 Explanation of Regulatory Provision  
Our regulations describe the preliminary determ ination in AD and CVD investigations as the 
first point at which the Department may provide a remedy if we preliminarily find that dumping or 
countervailable subsidization has occurred. The regula tions at 19 CFR 351.205(a) stated that, "[t]he 
remedy (sometimes referred to as 'provisiona l measures') usually takes the form of a bonding 
requirement to ensure payment if antidumping or countervailing duties ultimately are imposed.'' Section 351.205(d) of the Department 's regulations states that, "[i]f the preliminary determination is 
affirmative, the Secretary will take the actions  described in section 703(d) or section 733(d) 
(whichever is applicable).''  
The provisional measures period is the period between the publication of the Department's 
preliminary affirmative determination and the earlie r of (1) The expiration of the applicable time 
period set forth in sections 703(d) and 733(d) of th e Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), or 
(2) the publication of the International Trade Co mmission (Commission)'s final affirmative injury 
determination.  \1\ During this time the Department is  instructed by the Act to order "the posting of a 
cash deposit, bond, or other security, as the administering authority deems appropriate.''  See Sections 703(d)(1)(B) and 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 \1\ Also, pursuant to sections 703(e)(2) and 733(e)(2 ) of the Act, if the Department makes an 
affirmative determination of critical circumstances, then provisional measures shall apply on or after the later of (A) The date which is 90 days before  the date on which the suspension of liquidation was 
first ordered, or (B) the date on which notice of the determination to initiate the investigation is 
published in the Federal Register. 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Requiring that provisional measures will normally ta ke the form of a cash deposit will help to 
strengthen the administration of the nation's AD  and CVD laws by making importers directly 
responsible for the payment of AD and CVD duties.  This change will help to ensure that the 
U.S. Government collects the full amount of the du ties owed should an investigation result in the 
imposition of an AD or CVD order and, further, it w ill reduce some of the burdens that U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) faces when trying to  collect AD and CVD duties.  Certain parties 
commented on the explanation the Department provide d for this change in the Proposed Rule, and the 
Department has addressed those comments in the section entitled "Response to Comments on the 
Proposed Rule''.  Explanation of Final Modification to 19 CFR 351.205  
Prior to this modification to the regulations, the second sentence of 19 CFR 351.205(a) stated 
that "[t]he remedy (sometimes referred to as 'pr ovisional measures') usually takes the form of a 
bonding requirement to ensure payment if an tidumping or countervailing duties ultimately are 
imposed.''  The Department deleted most of the sentence to no longer permit under normal 
circumstances, U.S. importers to post bonds duri ng the provisional measures period.  However, the  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 5 
 
 
  Department retained the phrase "(sometimes referred to as `provisional measures')'' but moved it to 
the first sentence of 19 CFR 351.205(a).  We view th is phrase as a useful link between this part of our 
regulations and the terminolog y under Article 7 of the WTO Ag reement on Implementation of 
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs  and Trade 1994 ("ADA'') and Article 17 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("ASCM''). 
 
Further, to clarify that provisional measur es will take the form of cash deposits, the 
Department added a sentence to 19 CFR 351.205(d) th at states, "With respect to section 703(d)(1)(B) 
and 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act, the Secretary will norma lly order the posting of cash deposits to ensure 
payment if antidumping or countervailing duties ultima tely are imposed.''  This change, in our view, 
places the requirement for cash deposits in the appropr iate part of 19 CFR part 351 (i.e., in the part 
that explains the effects of an affirmative prelim inary determination).  This amendment reflects the 
Department's change in practice to now normally re quire cash deposits rather than bonds during the 
provisional measures period.  This modification is also in line with 19 CFR 351.205(d), which 
provides that "if the preliminary determination is affirmative, the Secretary will take the actions 
described in section 703(d) or section 733(d) of th e Act (whichever is applicable)'' because these 
sections of the Act provide that the Department sh all order the posting of cash deposits or bonds, as 
the Department deems appropriate.  
Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule 
 
The Department received numerous comments on its Proposed Rule.  As indicated in the 
"Background'' section, these comments can be accessed  using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
http://www.Regulations.gov  under Docket Number ITA-2011-0005.  The Department has analyzed 
and carefully considered all of the comments rece ived. Below is a summary of the comments, grouped 
by issue category, and followed by the Department's response. 
 Issue 1--U.S. Law, the WTO Agreements, and Cash  Deposits During the Provisional Measures Period 
 
Several commenters assert that section 703(d)(l )(B) and 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act provide the 
Department discretion to collect cash deposits as provis ional measures.  Some of the same parties also 
note that Article 7 of the ADA and Article 17 of the ASCM indicate that WTO members may require 
importers to post cash deposits as provisional measures.   Another commenter asserts that Article 7 of 
the ADA and Article 17 of the AS CM indicate no hierarchy between cash and bond requirements for 
provisional measures, and that allowing the importer to choose the kind of guarantee that is suitable 
for them reduces the chance of default.  Anothe r commented that the ADA and ASCM clearly provide 
for the acceptance of bonds as one of the options for the purpose of covering provisional duties. 
 
Response:  It is within the Department's di scretion to require that provisional measures will 
normally take the form of a cash deposit.  The Ac t does not specify a preference for cash deposits or 
bonds, nor does it provide the importer with the option of selecting which method the importer 
prefers.  For the provisional measures period in AD and CVD investigations, the Act provides for "the 
posting of a cash deposit, bond, or other security, as the administering authority deems appropriate.''  
See sections 703(d)(1)(B) and 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act.  
The modification to our regulations is also  consistent with the ADA and the ASCM.  
Article 7.2 of the ADA states that, "[p]rovisional measures may take the form of a provisional duty or, 
preferably, a security by cash deposit or bond equal to the amount of the antidumping duty 
provisionally estimated, being not greater than th e provisionally estimated margin of dumping.''  
(emphasis added).  Article 17.2 of the ASCM states that, "[p]rovisional measures may take the form of provisional countervailing duties guaranteed by cash  deposits or bonds equal to the amount of the 
provisionally calculated amount of subsidization. ''  (emphasis added).  U.S. law and the WTO G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 6 
 
 
  Agreements provide that the Department may require  either the posting of cash deposits or bonds, and 
do not prohibit the Department from normally re quiring the posting of cash deposits only during the 
provisional measures period.   
Issue 2--Use of Bonding by Other Countries 
 
Several commenters assert that the practice of most, if not all, other WTO members is to 
require cash deposits during the pr ovisional measures period, and th at the proposed modification will 
bring the United States in line with the practices of other WTO members.  Other commenters assert 
that the laws of certain WTO members provide fo r an option to post bonds or other security as 
provisional measures.  
Response:  The Department has considered the information the commenters provided on the 
practice of various countries of permitting or not  permitting importers the option of posting bonds 
during the provisional measures period of AD and C VD investigations.  As detailed in the above 
section entitled "Issue 1--U.S. Law, the WTO Agreem ents, and Cash Deposits During the Provisional 
Measures Period,'' requiring cash deposits is permis sible under the WTO Agreements and this also 
appears to be the practice of many WTO members.   While certain WTO members may provide for an 
option to post bonds, sections 703(d )(1)(B) and 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act grant the Department the 
discretion to select the form of security that it deems appropriate as a provisional measure.  After 
considering all the comments received, and for the reasons outlined in the Pr oposed Rule and this 
Final Rule, we have decided to proceed with the modifications to our regulations specified in the 
Proposed Rule.  Accordingly, we are modifying our regulations to normally require cash deposits 
rather than bonds during the provisional meas ures period of AD and CVD duty investigations. 
 
Issue 3--Effective Date of Rule Change 
 
Several commenters urged the Department to ma ke the change effective immediately.  Two 
of these parties asked that we apply the change not only in future investiga tions, but to all pending 
AD or CVD proceedings for which a final determin ation has not yet been issued.  One commenter 
asserted that implementation of this modification to the Department's regulations will involve minimal 
administrative burden in light of the ve ry limited number of pending proceedings. 
 
Response:  As indicated in the DATES section above, this Final Rule will apply to all 
investigations initiated on the basis of petitions file d on or after November 2, 2011.  The Department 
believes that this is a reasonable approach to the eff ective date issue for this particular rule change.  
Importantly, implementing the Final Rule in this  manner will provide parties (e.g., importers of 
merchandise that are subject to an AD or CVD inv estigation) time to prepare for the new requirement 
to normally post cash deposits upon the publication of  an affirmative preliminary determination. 
 Issue 4--Financial Consequences of Cash Deposits  
Several commenters assert that the change w ould have significant adverse consequences for 
importers.  They argue that it would be burdens ome for the importers, some of which are small 
businesses, because their cash flow would be negativ ely impacted.  Certain supporters of the change 
assert that any burden placed on importers by the c ash deposit requirement is mitigated by the fact 
that provisional measures are in place for a short period of time. 
 
Response:  The Department acknowledges that, in the past, certain importers may have 
benefited from the option of posting bonds duri ng the provisional measures period and that upon 
implementation of this Final Rule that option will no longer be readily available to them.  
Nonetheless, the Act clearly provides the Department with discretion to require either cash deposits or  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 7 
 
 
  bonds should a company choose to import merchandise that has been preliminarily determined to be 
dumped or subsidized and likely to be causing injury to an industry in the United States.  The Department considers the security for provisiona l measures to be an important matter for the 
collection of duties.  The requirement of a cash deposit will better ensure that importers bear full 
responsibility for any future AD and CVD duties th ey may owe, as the Department and CBP have 
learned from the agencies' extensive experience in the administration of the AD and CVD laws. 
 
The provisional measures period lasts, at most, six months.  The Department considers this to 
be a relatively short period in the context of an  AD or CVD proceeding.  Further, importers will 
receive the cash deposit back in full if the imports at issue are not dumped (sold in the United States at 
less than the normal value of the merchandise) or not found to benefit from a countervailable subsidy 
(or the Commission issues a negative injury findi ng).  If the margin calculated for the final 
determination ends up lower than the margin calcula ted at the preliminary determination, the statute 
requires that the difference be refunded to the im porter.  See Sections 707(a)(2) (CVD) and 737(a)(2) 
(AD) of the Act.  However, if the margin calcula ted for the final determination is higher than the 
margin calculated at the preliminary determin ation, the difference is disregarded.  See 
Sections 707(a)(1) (CVD) and 737(a)(1) (AD) of the Act.   In other words, in no circumstance will an 
importer be required to post cash deposits which e qual more than the margin determined at the 
preliminary determination, and in fact will be refu nded its cash deposit to the extent the deposit is 
higher than the duty that is determined to be due. 
 
Issue 5--Significance of Change to the Regulation  
One commenter stated that the Department's r easoning as to why the change is not significant 
is "subjective and without factual basis, especially since the Department ignor es the market impact of 
preliminary determinations on small business industria l users/consumers.''  Certain supporters of the 
change argued that the percentage of U.S. imports subject to AD or CVD orders is extremely small. 
  Response:  In determining whether this ch ange to its regulations is significant, the 
Department first considered the fact that less than  two percent of all entries of merchandise into the 
United States are subject to AD or CVD duties.  Next, the Department examined the number of 
affirmative preliminary determinations which were  issued in both AD and CVD investigations in 
2007, 2008 and 2009.  For instance, if an affirm ative preliminary determination was published in 
June 2007, importers were require d to post cash deposits or bonds ge nerally beginning on the date of 
publication for a four to six month period.  For each year, we also examined how many AD and CVD proceedings were ongoing, accounting for orders whic h had been revoked during a particular year.  
We then compared the number of affirmative prelim inary determinations published in a given year to 
the number of ongoing proceedings in  that year, to find the percenta ge of ongoing proceedings in each 
year where provisional measures were applied.  We  found that the average of the results of this 
comparison for 2007, 2008 and 2009 was less than ten percent.  This analysis was used for the 
proposed regulatory change, and it demonstrates that the change is not significant because the change 
in the security requirement will impact less th an ten percent of ongoing AD/CVD proceedings. 
 
For the Final Rule, our analysis included data from 2010, which we did not include in our 
initial analysis.  The 2010 data further supports  our initial analysis:  in 2010, there were 
15 preliminary affirmative AD determinations and six preliminary affirmative CVD determinations, 
in comparison to 260 ongoing AD proceedings  and 46 ongoing CVD proceedings.  For 2010, 
approximately seven percent of all AD and CVD pro ceedings involved the app lication of provisional 
measures during the year.  Also, the simple average of the results for each year from 2007 
through 2010 is less than ten percen t.  Thus, we find that the market impact of altering the provisional 
measures security requirement is not significant fo r purposes of making a regulatory change.  Finally, 
we disagree with the assertion that the Department is  required to make an analysis of the significance G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 8 
 
 
  of the change with regard to "small business industria l users/consumers.''  The analytical requirements 
of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), requires that the Department consider the "economic impact on a substantial 
number of small business entities,'' which requires th e Department to analyze the economic impact on 
all small business entities, and is not lim ited to industrial users/consumers. 
 
Issue 6--Requiring Cash Deposits Based on a Preliminary Determination   Several commenters argue that it is unfair to  require cash deposits based on a preliminary 
determination, when a final order may not be issu ed.  Some commenters assert that this change will 
serve as a trade barrier, and one party commented that  the Department's true intention is to benefit 
petitioners in response to recent unfavorable WTO and court decisions.  Se veral supporters of the 
change assert that importers are protected by the fact that provisional measures are not imposed without a preliminary determination of dumping (or countervailable subsidization) and injury.  The 
parties also assert that the change will better ensu re that the U.S. government can collect the full 
amount of duties owed, should the investigation r esult in the imposition of an AD or CVD order. 
  Response:  We disagree with the assertion that it is unfair to require cash deposits based on a 
preliminary determination in an AD or CVD invest igation.  Before impos ing provisional measures, 
the Department must make an affirmative prelim inary determination of dumping or countervailable 
subsidization and the Commission must also make a preliminary determination as to whether dumping 
or subsidization are likely to be causing material  injury.  While a preliminary determination may 
occur without an order being issued, in such a circumstance any cash deposits are completely 
refunded to the importer(s).  We also disagree with  the assertion that the change would act as a trade 
barrier because AD and CVD measures, when applied c onsistent with WTO rules, remedy injury and 
harm caused by market-distorting unfair trade practices. 
 
 On August 26, 2010, in support of President Obama's National Export Initiative (NEI), the 
Department announced a number of proposals to stre ngthen the agency's administration of the nation's 
AD and CVD laws.  One of those proposals is the modification of the regulations regarding the acceptance of bonds during the provisional measu res period in AD and CVD investigations.  
Specifically, the Department indicated that it is "[ c]onsidering whether importers will be required to 
post cash deposits rather than bonds for imports  that fall within the scope of an AD/CVD 
investigation starting with the issuance of the De partment's preliminary de termination (rather than 
following the imposition of an AD/CVD order).''  See "NEI Trade Law Enforcement Package Fact Sheet'' at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/tlei/fachsheet-tlei-20101108.pdf .  As indicated in the above section 
entitled "Explanation of Final Modification to 19  CR 351.205,'' the posting of cash deposits rather 
than bonds will make importers directly responsibl e for the payment of AD and CVD duties.  It will 
also help to ensure that the U.S. Government collects the full amount of the duties owed should an 
investigation result in the imposition of an AD or C VD order.  Further, the change will reduce some 
of the burdens that CBP faces when trying to collect AD and CVD duties.  Issue 7--Whether Bonds Will Be Accepted in Any Circumstance 
 
 One commenter argues that the Proposed Rule would still allow bonding as an option for provisional measures, and suggests that the Depart ment should set forth guidelines of circumstances 
in which bonding is permitted.  Another argues that  the Department should consider other options to 
address the issues it has experienced with the u se of bonding during the provisional measures period 
(such as those used in new shipper reviews). 
  Response:  The change to the regulation provi des that "the Secretary will normally order the 
posting of cash deposits to ensure payment if antidumping or countervailing duties ultimately are 
imposed.''  The Department considers that this ch ange appropriately addresses the concerns identified  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 9 
 
 
  with the use of bonding during the provisional measures period of AD and CVD investigations.  The 
use of the term "normally'' provides the Depart ment flexibility to address those rare and unusual 
circumstances that the Department may find wa rrant the acceptance of bonds.  The Department 
intends to make such exceptional determinations on a case-by-case basis (depending on the particular 
facts of each case) as warranted rather than attempti ng to articulate a rule that predicts what unusual 
circumstances may arise in the futu re.  With regard to the comment about new shipper reviews, unlike 
in investigations, bonding in new shi pper reviews is required by the Act. 
 Issue 8--Administrative Burdens of Permitting Bonding 
 
 One commenter asserts that the Department c ites a subjective and unsubstantiated conclusion 
regarding the burden the bonding requirement impos es on CBP.  Another commenter asserts that by 
requiring cash deposits, the administrative burdens  and expenses, such as ensuring adequate bond 
coverage and handling claims for mitigation or relief from the bond requirement, will be minimized. 
 
 Response:  In the Proposed Rule the Department  stated that, "[w]hile most of the duties on 
entries secured by a bond during the provisional  measures period are ultimately collected, these 
collections can be very slow and involve burdens ome administrative problems for (CBP).''  This 
conclusion was based on the U.S. Government A ccountability Office's (GAO) Report to Congress on 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (GAO-08-391) (March 2008), in which the GAO stated that 
when an importer fails to pay supplemental AD or CVD duties, CBP frequently faces a lengthy 
process of trying to collect from bonding agents .  Additionally, CBP reports bonding is more 
burdensome than collecting cash deposits becau se Single Transaction Bonds (STBs), which are 
required for the posting of bonds in AD and CVD inv estigations, must be reviewed for sufficiency 
and adequacy.  Further, since bonds are legal docum ents, CBP must keep paper copies of STBs.  CBP 
also has to manually enter an electronic note in its Automated Commercial System for STBs.  
Conversely, cash deposits are recorded electronically in ACS and are usually transmitted to CBP electronically and, thus, are recorded automatically.  Issue 9--The Use of Bonds in a Retrospective Duty Assessment System  
 One commenter asserted that bonds are a more appropriate form of provisional measures for 
the United States since it has a retrospective duty co llection system, and requests that the Department 
not modify the current regulations and practice of accepting bonds during the provisional measures period.  
 Response:  The Department disagrees with the assertion that bonds are a more appropriate 
form of provisional measures, and notes that no inform ation or argument was provided to support this 
assertion.  The ADA and ASCM permit the application of  provisional measures in the form of cash or 
bond, regardless of whether the WTO member is opera ting a prospective or retrospective system.  In 
either system, provisional measures serve the same  function--to provide adequate security for the 
payment of AD or CVD duties pending the final determ ination of whether such duties are owed and in 
what amount. 
 Classification  Executive Order 12866 
 
 This rule has been determined to be not  significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 10 
 
 
  Regulatory Flexibility Act 
  The Chief Counsel for Regulation has certif ied to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule, if promulgated,  would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small business entities.  The fa ctual basis for the certification was published in 
the Proposed Rule.  The Department received a comme nt regarding the factual basis for this decision, 
which appears in Issue 5--Significance of Change to the Regulation.  Based upon the Department's 
analysis, as discussed above, the factual basis used in the Proposed Rule to determine that the rule, if 
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business 
entities did not change.  See Issue 5--Significance of Change to the Regulation.  As a result, a Final 
Regulatory Flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.  Paperwork Reduction Act 
 
 This rule does not contain 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, An tidumping, Business and industry, Cheese, 
Confidential business information, Countervailing duti es, Freedom of information, Investigations, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.   Dated:  September 15, 2011. 
 Ronald K. Lorentzen, 
 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.   For the reasons stated, 19 CFR part 351 is amended 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. 
  Sec.  351.205  [Amended]  0 2. In Sec.  351.205, revise paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows: 
 
 (a) Introduction.  A preliminary determinat ion in an antidumping or countervailing duty 
investigation constitutes the first point at which the Secretary may provide a remedy 
(sometimes referred to as "provisional measures'')  if the Secretary preliminarily finds that 
dumping or countervailable subsidization has occu rred.  Whether the Secretary's preliminary 
determination is affirmative or negative, the investigation contin ues.  This section contains 
rules regarding deadlines for preliminary de terminations, postponement of preliminary 
determinations, notices of preliminary determ inations, and the effects of affirmative 
preliminary determinations. 
  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 11 
 
 
  * * * * * 
  (d) Effect of affirmative preliminary determ ination.  If the preliminary determination is 
affirmative, the Secretary will take the actions described in section 703(d) or section 733(d) of 
the Act (whichever is applicab le).  With respect to section 703(d)(1)(B) and 733(d)(1)(B) of 
the Act, the Secretary will normally order the posting of cash deposits to ensure payment if antidumping or countervailing duties ultimately are imposed.  In making information available to the Commission under section 703( d)(3) or section 733(d)(3) of the Act, the 
Secretary will make available to the Commission and to employees of the Commission 
directly involved in the proceeding the in formation upon which the Secretary based the 
preliminary determination and which the Commi ssion may consider relevant to its injury 
determination. 
 * * * * * 
 
 [FR Doc. 2011-24666 Filed 9-30-11;  8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P 
 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 12 
 
 
  [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2011)] 
[Rules and Regulations] [Pages 39263-39278] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] 
[FR Doc No: 2011-16352] 
  ======================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE  International Trade Administration 
 19 CFR Part 351 
 [Docket No.100614263-1331-02] RIN 0625-AA84  
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceed ings:  Electronic Filing Procedures;  
Administrative Protective Order Procedures  
AGENCY:   Import Administration, International Trad e Administration, Department of Commerce. 
 ACTION:   Final rule. 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  SUMMARY:   The Department of Commerce ("the De partment'') is ame nding its regulations 
governing the submission of information to the Department in antidumping duty ("AD'') and 
countervailing duty ("CVD'') proceedings.  These amendments will incorporate changes resulting 
from the Department's implementation of an elect ronic filing and documents  management program.  
More detailed procedures for electronic filing are set forth in a document separate from the regulations that is entitled "I A ACCESS Handbook On Electronic Filing Procedures'' ("IA ACCESS 
Handbook''), which the Department h as published on its Web site at http://iaaccess.trade.gov . 
 
DATES:  Effective Date:  The effectiv e date of this final rule is Augus t 5, 2011.  This final rule will 
apply to all AD/CVD proceedings that are active on  the effective date and all AD/CVD proceedings 
initiated on or after the effective date.  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Evangelin e Keenan, Director of APO/Dockets Unit, 
Import Administration at (202) 482-3354;  or Brian Soiset, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, 
Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration at (202) 482-1284. 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
 
Background 
 
On September 28, 2010, the Department pub lished proposed amendments to the rules 
governing the submission of information to the Department in antidumping duty ("AD'') and 
countervailing duty ("CVD'') proceedings and re quested comments from the public. 75 FR 44163 
(September 28, 2010) ("Proposed Rule'').  The Proposed Rule included changes resulting from the  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 13 
 
 
  Department's implementation of an electronic filing and documents management program named 
Import Administration Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System, 
or IA ACCESS.  The Department conducted a pilo t program to test IA ACCESS from July 1, 2010 
through September 30, 2010. 75 FR 32341 (June 8, 2010);  Import Administration IA ACCESS Pilot 
Program, Public Notice and Request For Comments;  Correction, 75 FR 34960 (June 21, 2010). 
  The Department received numerous comments on its Proposed Rule and pilot program.  The Proposed Rule, the comments received, and this notice can be accessed using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.Regulations.gov  under Docket Number ITA-2010-0003.  After 
analyzing and carefully considering all of the comme nts that the Department received in response to 
the Proposed Rule and after review of the expe rience gained during the IA ACCESS Pilot Program 
and the comments thereto, the Department has ame nded certain provisions of the Proposed Rule and 
is publishing its final regulations .  In addition, the Department has addressed below the comments 
received pertaining to the pilot program, implementation, and other technical aspects of IA ACCESS 
and the procedures for the release of public and business proprietary information using IA ACCESS. 
 Explanation of Particular Provisions  Sections 351.103(a), 351.103(b), 351.103(c), an d 351.103(d). Electronic and Manual Filing of 
Documents and Service Lists 
 
Sections 351.103(a) and 351.103(b) describe the functions of Import Administration's Central 
Records Unit (CRU) and Administrative Protective Order and Dockets Unit (APO/Dockets Unit), as 
well as their location and office hours.  The prior regulation stated that one function of the CRU is to maintain the Subsidies Library.  The new regulation states that the Subsidies Library is maintained by 
Import Administration's Subsidies Enforcemen t Office.  The Department also amended 
Sec. 351.103(a) to reflect that CRU is now located  in Room 7046 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building.  
The Department also amended sections 351.103(a) a nd 351.103(b) to specify that the office hours 
pertain to Eastern Time and to clarify that the Department's official address is 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW.  Additionally, the Department  deleted an extraneous period in "NW'' in the 
addresses of the CRU and the APO/Dockets Unit. 
 
The prior regulation provided, in Sec.  351.103(c) , that although a party is free to provide the 
Department with a courtesy copy of a document, a document is not considered to be officially 
received by the Department unless it is submitted to  the Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit in 
Room 1870 and stamped with the date and, where n ecessary, the time of the receipt.  To implement 
electronic filing procedures, the Department is amen ding the regulation so that the Department will 
consider a document to be officially received by th e Department only when it is filed electronically in 
its entirety using IA ACCESS, in accordance with S ec.  351.303(b)(2)(i), or, where applicable, filed 
manually in the APO/Dockets Unit in  accordance with Sec.  351.303(b) (2)(ii).  The Department also 
deleted the reference to courtesy copies of a documen t in the final rule.  Because the Department will 
now require that documents be filed electronically, Import Administration staff will have faster access 
to filed submissions, thus reducing the need for courtesy copies. 
 
With regard to manual filing, the Department had stated in the Proposed Rule that it would 
provide exceptions to the electronic filing requireme nt, but if a submitter experiences difficulty in 
filing a document electronically under circumstances for which "an'' exception applies, the 
Department will consider the ability of the submitter and may modify the electronic filing requirement 
on a case-by-case basis.  One comme nter stated that this explanatory language in the Proposed Rule 
stood in contrast with the actual language in proposed  Sec.  351.303(b)(2), which stated that "if a 
submitter is unable to comply with the electroni c filing requirement under certain circumstances for 
which no exception applies, the submitter must notif y the Department promptly of any difficulties G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 14 
 
 
  encountered in filing the document electronically.''  Proposed Rule, 75 FR at 44164 (emphasis added).  
The commenter stated that the Department should unconditionally a llow the relevant exception to 
apply, rather than make each situation a judgmen t call regarding the surrounding circumstances.  The 
Department had made an inadvertent error in the explanatory language for Sec.  351.103(c) in the 
Proposed Rule.  The Department had intended to st ate that if a submitter experiences difficulty in 
filing a document electronically for which no ex ception applies, the submitter must notify the 
Department promptly of any difficulties encountered  in filing the document electronically.  However, 
the Department has amended sections 351.103(c)  and 351.303(b)(2) so this language was not 
ultimately included in the final rule. 
 
Section 351.103(d)(1) of the prio r regulation required each interested party to file a letter of 
appearance separately from any other document filed with the Department, with the exception of a 
petitioner filing a petition in an investigation.  The Department is amending the regulation to specify 
that it is this letter of appearance that triggers th e interested party's inclusion in the public service list 
for the segment of the proceeding.  The new regula tion also refers to the definition of "interested 
party'' under Sec.  351.102(b)(29) to improve and clarif y the explanation of how an interested party is 
placed on the public service list.  
One commenter suggested that the notice of appearance should also indicate whether that 
person prefers to or consents to electronic service (i.e., e-mail) for public documents and/or public 
versions of business proprietary documents.  The Department has not adopted this suggestion because 
this rulemaking was intended to change the rules w ith regard to the filing of documents using IA 
ACCESS. It was not intended to change the rules regarding the method of serving documents.  With 
the exception of the service of AP O applications in Sec.  351.305(b)(2) and the requirement that 
parties serve the complete final business proprieta ry document when bracketing changes have been 
made in Sec.  351.303(c)(2)(ii), the Department  has not changed the service requirements in the 
regulations.  Sections 351.104(a), 351.104(b), 351.302(a), 351.302( c), and 351.302(d). Return of Material, Record 
of Proceedings, Extension of Time Limits, and Re turn of Untimely Filed or Unsolicited Material 
 
Section 351.104 
 
Section 351.104(a) pertains to the official re cord of AD and CVD proceedings.  The prior 
regulation stated that the CRU will maintain an offici al record of each proceeding.  The Department is 
deleting the reference to the CRU because the official record will not be located in the CRU for 
documents filed after IA ACCESS is implemented.  Instead, for those documents, IA ACCESS will 
comprise the official record.  However, the CRU will c ontinue to maintain the o fficial record in paper 
form for those documents that were filed prior to the implementation of IA ACCESS. 
 
In addition, Sec.  351.104(a) previously stat ed that the Secretary will not use factual 
information, written argument, or other material that the Secretary returns to the submitter.  The 
regulation also specifies the circumstances under whic h the official record w ill include a copy of a 
returned document.  Sections 351.302(a) and 351.3 02(d) also previously set forth the procedures for 
requesting an extension of time limits and proce dures for returning untimely filed submissions.  The 
Department is amending these sections by replacing th e term "return'' with "reject.''  Because the 
Department will use an electronic filing system, rather than physically returning inadmissible 
electronic submissions, the Department will reject  such submissions and send written notice of the 
rejection to the submitter.  
Section 351.104(b) pertains to the public record of AD and CVD proceedings.  The prior 
regulation specified that the public record of each proceeding will be maintained by the CRU.  In the  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 15 
 
 
  Proposed Rule, the Department proposed adding a st atement that the public record will also be 
accessible online at http://www.trade.gov/ia .  The Department is removing the reference to CRU in 
this final rule because, as explained above, IA  ACCESS, not CRU, will comprise and contain the 
public record for documents filed after its implemen tation.  The CRU will continue to maintain the 
public record in paper form for those documents that were filed prior to implementation of IA 
ACCESS.  During the first phase of implementation (whi ch begins on the effective date of this final 
rule), the public will be able to access the public record on IA AC CESS from computers in the CRU.  
After the second phase of implementation of IA ACC ESS, the public will be able to access the public 
record on the Department's Web site from any co mputer with Internet access.  Because the public 
record will not be accessible from the Web site on the e ffective date of this final rule, the Department 
is deleting the reference to the Web site.  Section 351.302  
Section 351.302(c) addresses procedures for requ esting an extension of a specific time limit. 
The Department proposed amending the regulation by including a reference to Sec.  351.303 in order 
to specify that an extension request be made in  writing and properly filed using IA ACCESS.  One 
commenter stated that the Department should cl arify whether its proposed amendment to require 
extension requests to be made in writing suggests that telephonic or written requests by e-mail will 
never be accepted under the new regulations.  Th e commenter stated that  the Department must 
recognize that under certain circumstances, such as a power outage or a service outage on the part of 
an Internet service provider, it may be impossible to timely and properly file a written extension request with the Department through electronic filing.  The Department has not changed the 
requirement that an extension request must be in wr iting and properly filed.  The only change in the 
final regulation is a reference to the requirement th at the extension request must be filed consistent 
with Sec.  351.303, which contains the electroni c filing requirement as well as provisions for when 
manual filing may be appropriate.  In addition, as discussed below, if  a user experiences difficulty in 
electronically filing an extension request or any ot her submission, a Help Desk line will be available 
during business hours to assist the user.  Sections 351.303(a), 351.303(b) , 351.303(c), 351.30 3(d), and 351.303(f). Filing, Document 
Identification, Format, Specifications and Markings, and Service 
 
The Department is amending Sec.  351.303 to re quire electronic filing of all documents and to 
specify when manual filing will be accepted as an alte rnative.  The Department is also clarifying the 
identification of documents and correcting mi nor typographical errors in this section. 
 
Section 351.303(a). Introduction  
The Department is amending the heading for Sec.  351.303 to add the term "Document 
Identification.'' The Department is also ame nding Sec.  351.303(a) to include "documentation 
identification'' in the list of procedural rules covered by this regulation. 
 
Section 351.303(b). Filing  
The Department is amending Sec.  351.303(b)  to add subparagraphs (1) through (4).  
Section 351.303(b) previously required all documents to be addressed and submitted to the 
APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days.  The 
Department is amending this secti on by designating it as subparagraph (1).  The Department is also 
including in Sec.  351.303(b)(1) the term "Eastern Ti me'' to clarify the time a submission is due when 
the submitter may be filing the submission from a di fferent time zone.  The Department is also 
omitting the period after "NW'' in the Department 's address, which was a typographical error. G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 16 
 
 
   In the Proposed Rule, the Department proposed  specifying that manually filed submissions 
must be submitted between the hours of 8:30 a.m. a nd 5 p.m. Eastern Time on business days, but that 
electronically filed submissions must be filed by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.  The reason for 
the distinction is that manually filed submi ssions may only be filed during business hours, but 
electronically filed submissions may be filed at any time, provided that they are filed in their entirety 
by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.   Two commenters requested clarification of whether electronically filed submissions will be due by 5 p.m. on the original due date, even if it falls on a weekend, holiday or non-business day.  The 
commenters stated that parties whose deadlines do not fall on a business day will be at a disadvantage 
to parties whose deadlines fall on a business day and that there is no reason why the Department 
should grant less time for electronically filed docum ents on days when the Department is closed.  
Another commenter stated that electronic filing larg ely eliminates the rationale for a 5 p.m. deadline 
and suggested that the Department should require th at documents to be filed prior to midnight on that 
date.  The same commenter proposed, alternativel y, that if the Department will maintain its 
requirement that different filing events be used for files that exceed the system's file size limit, then 
the Department should adopt other procedures to av oid harsh results.  For example, the commenter 
suggested setting the deadline for such large documents at 6 p.m.  
In response to the first two comments, th e Department is amending the language in 
Sec. 351.303(b)(1) to clarify that where the due date  for either an electronic or manual filing falls on a 
non-business day, the Secretary will accept documents filed on the next business day.  With regard to 
the proposals to change the filing deadline to midn ight or, alternatively, 6 p.m. for submissions 
requiring multiple filing events, the Department ha s not adopted either proposal.  The APO/Dockets 
Unit, which will continue to process manually f iled documents, will maintain its current hours of 
operation, 8:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. Eastern Time, in order to provide equal treatment for both 
electronic and manual submissions.  In addition, the Department's technical support for electronic 
filing will not be available after 5 p.m., so the Department believes that a 5 p.m. deadline is appropriate.  Electronic Filing Requirement and Exceptions Thereto 
 
The Department is adding Sec.  351.303(b )(2), which sets forth the electronic filing 
requirement using IA ACCESS and the exemptions to that requirement.  This regulation also refers to 
the IA ACCESS Handbook, which cont ains detailed filing procedures that a submitter must follow.  
The IA ACCESS Handbook is available on the Department's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/ia . 
 
In the Proposed Rule, the Department stated  that exceptions to the electronic filing 
requirement will be set forth in the IA ACCESS Handbo ok.  Proposed Sec.  351.303(b)(2)(i) stated 
that if a submitter were unable to comply with the electronic filing requirement under certain circumstances for which no excep tion in the IA ACCESS Handbook applies, in accordance with 
section 782(c) of the Tariff Act, as amended, the De partment will consider the ability of the submitter 
and may modify the electronic filing requirements on a case-by-case basis. 
 
The Department received numerous comments w ith regard to this regulation.  Several 
commenters expressed the need for the Department  to disclose the specific exceptions to or 
exemptions from the electronic filing requirement.  One commenter stated that exceptions to the 
electronic filing requirement should be set fort h in the regulations themselves, despite the 
commenter's agreement with the Department's rati onale that the exceptions may evolve over time.  
The commenter stated that at a minimum, the initial list of excep tions should be inserted in the 
regulations with a notice that the list be amended as changes are made and that, until such time as the 
regulations can be updated, unpublished changes may be temporarily found on the Department's  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 17 
 
 
  Website.  Another commenter requested that the Depa rtment establish a standa rd set of exemptions 
which do not require a case-by-case decision.  In addition, the commenter proposed the development 
of a bulky document standard, whereby documents over a certain size would be routinely filed manually, without the need to request prior authorization on a case-by-case basis. 
 
After considering these comments, the Department is including in Sec.  351.303(b)(2)(ii)(A) 
two exemptions from the electronic filing require ment.  First, as proposed by one commenter, the 
Department has adopted a bulky document standa rd, whereby documents exceeding 500 pages may 
be filed manually, with the inclusion of a cove r sheet and separator sheets generated using IA 
ACCESS.  The Department finds that giving parties the option of manually filing bulky documents 
will facilitate the processing and review of such do cuments as parties make the transition to an 
electronic filing system.  Manual filing is optio nal for such documents, and the Department 
anticipates that parties will prefer to electronically file bulky documents as they become more accustomed to electronic filing. 
 
In determining whether a document qualifies as  bulky, a submitter must not include database 
printouts in the page count, and as stated in Sec.  351.303(c)(3), and further discussed below, database 
printouts need not be submitted to the Department.  The Department has included detailed instructions 
regarding such manual filings in the IA A CCESS Handbook, and parties must follow those 
instructions. 
 
The Department has also exempted large data base files from the electronic filing requirement 
in Sec.  351.303(b)(2)(ii)(A).  As explained in detail in the IA ACCESS Handbook, the Department 
requires database files exceeding the maximum file si ze (currently 20 MB) to be filed manually in the 
APO/Dockets Unit on a CD or DVD as a separate submission accompanied with a cover sheet 
generated in IA ACCESS.  Detailed instructions regarding the filing of database files are included in 
the IA ACCESS Handbook and parties must follow t hose instructions.  Unlike the bulky document 
exemption, the large data file exemption is mandatory.  
One commenter stated that the IA ACCESS system should have flexibility to allow 
exceptions to mandatory electronic filing and that  the Department should make accommodations for 
technical difficulties. 
 
In response to these comments, in Sec.  351.30 3(b)(2)(ii)(B), the Department has specified 
that if the IA ACCESS system is unable to accep t filings continuously or intermittently over the 
course of any period of time greater than one ho ur between 12 noon and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, or 
for any duration of time between 4:31 p.m. and 5 p. m. Eastern Time, then a person may manually file 
the document in the APO/Dockets Unit.  The Depa rtment will provide notice of such technical 
failures on its Help Desk line. Procedures for manual filing in this situation are provided in the IA 
ACCESS Handbook.  
Apart from the two exemptions specified in S ec.  351.303(b)(2)(ii)(A) and the IA ACCESS 
technical failures described in Sec.  351.303(b)(2)( ii)(B), the Department has also specified in 
Sec. 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(C) that if a submitter is unabl e to comply with the electronic filing requirement, 
as provided in Sec.  351.103(c) and in accordance with  section 782(c) of the Act, the submitter must 
notify the Department promptly of the reasons the submitter is unable to file the document 
electronically, and provide a full explanation and sugg ested alternative forms in which to submit the 
information.  The Department will consider the ability of the submitter and modify the electronic 
filing requirement on a case-by-case basis.  As such , if an exception is made, it will apply to the 
submitter requesting it for the document on which the modification is being requested.  An exception 
made under this provision will not serve as a bl anket exemption for all submitters for future 
submissions. G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 18 
 
 
  One commenter stated that prior to finalizing any regulations applicable to the electronic 
filing process, the Department should disclose its entire list of exceptions and allow the public to 
comment on them.  This commenter stated that doing so would allow parties to work with the 
Department in reducing or expandi ng the list of exceptions based on parties' experiences with other 
electronic filing systems. 
  Although the Department indicated in the Propos ed Rule that it wanted the flexibility to 
amend the list of exceptions on an ongoing basis, the Department has determined that it is more 
appropriate to explicitly include the above exemp tions in the regulations , subject to amendment 
through the notice and comment rulemaking pro cess.  Should the Department determine that 
additional exemptions are appropria te, it will amend the regulations as needed and solicit comments at 
that time.  
One commenter suggested that the Department  should create exceptions for petitions for the 
initiation of an AD or CVD investigation, pro se respondents, small businesses, and documents not 
readily susceptible to scanning such as physical exhi bits.  We have not adopted these proposals.  The 
Department has decided not to create standard ex ceptions based on the document type being filed, 
such as a petition.  Doing so would result in the imposition of different rules for counsel to petitioners and counsel to respondents.  The commenter ha s not explained why pro se respondents and small 
businesses should automatically be exempt from the electronic filing requirement.  Indeed, the 
Department believes that electronic filing will ultima tely reduce the cost and burden on outside parties 
and thus be beneficial to pro se respondents and small businesses.  The Department will also continue 
its practice of working closely with pro se responde nts and small businesses in assisting them through 
the filing process.  With regard to this commenter's  request for an exception fo r physical exhibits, we 
have never required the submission of physical exhibits:  Therefore we will not make an electronic 
filing exception for them.  The Department prefers th at rather than submit a physical exhibit, which 
may be large, cumbersome, or even perishable , a submitter should include in its submission a 
narrative description and/or photograph or video form at so that the character istics of the physical 
exhibit may be included on the record of the proceed ing.  If the submitter wishes to submit a physical 
exhibit, the submitter will need to obtain prio r written permission from the Department for an 
exception to file the physical exhibit manually in accordance with Sec. 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(C). 
 
File Size Limitations   One commenter recommended the Department cons ider a larger file size limitation, citing 
examples to the file size limits of the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Court of 
International Trade.  Another commenter stated that  if file size limits are imposed, they should be no 
less restrictive than the U.S. International Trad e Commission's limits:  50 separate attachments of 
25 MB each in a single filing event.  Another co mmenter noted that because documentation is often 
submitted to a legal representative in its original form  and needs to be submitted to the Department in 
Adobe portable document format ("PDF'') or JPEG fo rmat, the memory size of such files is much 
larger than those prepared in Microsoft Word or  Excel.  This could result in possibly dozens of 
electronic submissions, requiring the Department to piece together multiple sets of files.  Thus, the 
commenter recommended increasing the memory limitation of the size of files to the largest possible under the electronic filing system being proposed, including both for the overall memory threshold and the individual attachment threshold.  Another co mmenter stated that to avoid the need for separate 
filing events, the Department should impose limits only on the size of the individual attachments, 
without limits on the total file size.  The commenter  further stated that re petitive entry of identical 
information is burdensome and may lead to error.   Finally, two commenters recommended including 
the ability to link documents, so that the Depart ment can more easily piece together submissions 
where the individual sections exceed the size limitation.    G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 19 
 
 
  With respect to the comment on setting limits on file size, the Department has set the 
individual document file (i.e., case briefs, general co mments, etc.) size limit to 4 MB per file.  A 
document can be separated into numerous files, wh ich can be uploaded in ba tches of five, provided 
each individual file is no larger than 4 MB and th e total combined file size of the grouping does not 
exceed 20 MB.  The user may upload up to a total of  99 additional files, grouped in combinations of 
five, with the same individual and combined file  size as mentioned, and these individual files will be 
linked together, as suggested by one commenter.  In  addition, the Department has set the individual 
data file (i.e., SAS files, databases, etc.) size lim it to 20 MB per file.  Thus, the Department expects 
that IA ACCESS will be able to accommodate large documents which will be filed as linked, smaller 
files.  The Department added this feature duri ng the last month of the Release 1 pilot program. 
 
The Department has determined 4 MB to be the appropriate individual document file size 
limit and 20 MB to be the appropriate individual da ta file size limit based on numerous factors, each 
of which have been considered and balanced.  Su ch factors include the ability of the IA ACCESS 
system to accommodate the high volume of an ticipated submissions based on current server 
resources, the difficulty for Department personnel to wo rk with larger files, and the available Internet 
bandwidth to users throughout the world, which may limit their ability to upload larger documents.  
The Department has also determined that because  data files are submitted less frequently than 
document submissions, the IA ACCESS system is ca pable of accepting individual data files of 20 MB 
in size.  In addition, the larger individual file size for data meets the im portant need of keeping 
databases intact. 
 
Although the Department has determined 4 MB and 20 MB to be the appropriate individual 
file sizes for documents and data files, respectively,  at this time, the Department anticipates that the 
attachment and overall file size requirement ma y change over time as Internet resources expand 
throughout the world and the Department gains ex perience in administering the IA ACCESS system 
and using larger files.  
As for the commenter's statement that document ation must be submitted in JPEG format, IA 
ACCESS does not currently accept files in JPEG format.  
The Department acknowledges that the U.S. In ternational Trade Commission and Court of 
International Trade have different file size limitati ons for electronic filing.  However, the Department 
must base the individual file size limitation for IA ACCESS upon the specific needs of the Department's AD/CVD proceedings, such as the factors noted above as well as the type, size, 
frequency, and security classification of documents.  T hus, the Department has not chosen to align its 
file size limitations to those of the U.S. Interna tional Trade Commission and the Court of International 
Trade.  Section 782(c) of the Act  
One commenter noted that the Department di d not propose to require submitters who notify 
the Department promptly of any difficulties encount ered in submitting informa tion to the Department 
to also provide a suggested alternative method fo r submitting the information, which seems to be 
required under section 782(c) of the Act.  The commen ter suggested that the Department specifically 
reference this obligation in its ne w regulation, particularly when the failure to comply with the 
requirement could substantially ha rm the submitter in relation to its respective proceeding and the 
"burden'' on the Department of including notification of the requirement in its regulation is minimal. 
 
In its explanation of Sec.  351.303(b)(2 ), which addresses these requirements of 
section 782(c) of the Act, the Department noted th at it did not discuss the requirement to propose an 
alternative method of submission in the regulati ons because it anticipates that the alternative G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 20 
 
 
  suggestion would be for the submitter to file the submission manually.  However, the Department 
stated that this omission does not affect a submitter's obligation to satisfy such a requirement.  The Department agrees with the commenter that the language in section 782(c) of the Act should be 
included in Sec.  351.303(b)(2)(ii)(C) of the ne w regulations to put the public on notice of the 
requirement. Accordingly, the Department has am ended Sec.  351.303(b)(2)(ii)(C) to include the 
statutory requirement under section 782(c) of the Act that the submitter suggest alternative forms in 
which it is able to submit the requested information.   The Department is adding Sec.  351.303(b)(2)( ii)(D) to provide the number of hardcopies 
required if a document is filed manually.  Speci fically, a submitter must manually file in the 
APO/Dockets Unit one hardcopy of each document,  with the exception of a business proprietary 
document filed under the bulky document exemption, which requires two copies.  This regulation also 
specifies that a manual filing requires submission of a cover sheet generated in IA ACCESS in 
accordance with Sec.  351.303(b)(3). 
 
The Department is adding Sec.  351.303(b)(3) to specify that a cover sheet is required for 
manual submissions. A submitter must ge nerate the cover sheet online at http://iaaccess.trade.gov , and 
print it for submission to the APO/Dockets Unit al ong with the hardcopy manual submission.  The 
purpose of the cover sheet is to provide the Depa rtment with informati on indicating, among other 
things, the party filing the submission, the segment of the proceeding, and the type of submission 
being filed.  The cover sheet w ill contain a barcode that will be used to identify and track the 
submission.  The Department has removed the proposed requirement that a person complete a 
coversheet for a document that is filed electr onically.  Although IA ACCESS requests the same 
information for an electronic filing as it require s on the cover sheet for a manual filing, in the 
electronic filing mode, that information is referred  to as "IA ACCESS Document Information,'' not a 
cover sheet.  Therefore, the Department has de leted this reference from the final rule.  The 
Department had previously proposed including a st atement that the person submitting the cover sheet 
is responsible for the accuracy of all information contained in the cover sheet.  The Department has 
also removed that statement from the final rule b ecause the information appearing on the cover sheet 
already appears on the submission itself, the accuracy of which is already subject to certifications of 
factual accuracy that accompany the submission. 
 
The Department is adding Sec.  351.303(b)(4) to identify and distinguish among the five 
document classifications that may be submitted to  the Department.  The Department has observed 
confusion among interested parties with regard to  the identification and labeling of documents, 
especially with regard to documents containing doubl e-bracketed information.  Thus, the Department 
finds it necessary to standardize the identification and labeling of all documents.  In addition, a 
submitter will need to identify the document properl y when inputting the document information in IA 
ACCESS before filing the document.  The documen t identification will determine who will have 
access to the document. Misidentification of a docum ent may result in the unauthorized disclosure of 
business proprietary information.  The Department  is also moving the definition of "business 
proprietary version'' from Sec.  351.303(c)(2)(i) to Sec.  351.303(b)(4).  In addition, the Department is 
using the phrase "business proprietary document or business proprietary/APO version, as applicable'' 
rather than only "business proprietary version'' to make the terminology consistent with that in 
proposed Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(i), (ii), and (iii).  
Accordingly, the Department is adding sections 351.303(b)(4)(i), (ii), and (iii) to identify and 
define the three types of business proprietary submissions.  The document described in 
Sec. 351.303(b)(4)(i) is called "Business Proprietary Document--May Be Released Under APO.''  This 
business proprietary document contains only single -bracketed business proprietary information which 
a party agrees to release under administrative protective order ("APO'').   G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 21 
 
 
  The document classifications described in S ec.  351.303(b)(4)(ii) and (iii) are business 
proprietary documents that use double-bracketing.  The document described in Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(ii) 
is called "Business Proprietary Document-May Not Be Released Under APO.''  This document may 
contain both single and double-bracketed business propr ietary information, but the submitter does not 
agree to the release of the double-bracketed in formation under APO.  In this document, the 
information inside the double brackets is included.  
The third document classification described in  Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(iii) is called "Business 
Proprietary/APO Version--May Be Released Under APO.''  It must contain only single-bracketed 
business proprietary information.  The submitter must omit the double-bracketed business proprietary 
information from this version because this version w ill be released under APO.  This is why the term 
"APO Version'' is included in  the name of the document. 
 
The Department is adding Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(i v) and (v), which identify the two types of 
public submissions.  The first is the "Public Ve rsion,'' which corresponds to a business proprietary 
document, except it omits all business proprietary in formation, whether single or double-bracketed.  
This section also refers to the specific filing require ments for filing the public version, which is found 
in Sec.  351.304(c).  The second is the "Public Docu ment,'' which contains only public information.  
In the Proposed Rule, the Department had stated  that there is no corresponding business proprietary 
version for a public document. For the final rule, the Department is amending Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(v) 
to change the term "business proprietary version'' to "business proprietary document'' in order to make 
the terminology consistent with Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(i) and (ii). 
 
One commenter disagreed with the renaming of "business proprietary version'' to "business 
proprietary document.''  The commenter stated that  the term "business proprietary version'' implies 
that a public version will be filed on the next bus iness day, while "business proprietary document'' 
implies that no public version will be filed.  The co mmenter also stated that the change will generate 
more confusion for a term that has become standard  at both the Department and the U.S. International 
Trade Commission and that the existing confusion will be rectified by the inclusion of the definition 
of "APO version'' in the ame nded regulations.  Finally, the commenter stated that differing 
terminology may create unintended confusion regarding documents that must be filed at both 
agencies.  
 
The Department does not agree that the propo sed amendment will generate confusion.  A 
public version of a business proprietary documen t must always be filed in accordance with 
Sec. 351.304(c), and it therefore must correspond to the business proprietary document.  It is possible 
that the commenter meant that when a business propr ietary document is filed on the first day, in 
accordance with the one-day lag rule , it is in fact filed without the public version.  However, the 
Department is not basing the document classificat ions on when the documents/versions are filed 
relative to one another.  The Department's reas oning stems from the content of the submissions.  
When compared to the other document classifica tions, the business proprietary document is the 
complete document and contains all business proprieta ry information enclosed in brackets.  Thus, it 
should be referred to as a "document'' and not a "v ersion.''  The public version and APO version are 
versions of that document and are therefore named as such.  Section 351.303(c). Filing of Business Proprietary Documents and Public Versions Under the One-
Day Lag Rule;  Information in Double Brackets 
 
In Sec.  351.303(c)(1), 351.30 3(c)(2)(ii), and 351.303(c)(2)(iii) , the Department is deleting 
the requirement that a person must file multiple c opies of each submission with the Department (i.e., 
six copies of public documents, or the combination of:  (A) six copies of the business proprietary 
version and (B) three copies of the public version of a doc ument).  The Department has replaced these G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 22 
 
 
  sections with Sec.  351.303(b)(2)(ii)(D), which speci fies the number of hard copies required if a 
document is filed manually.  The original reason for these requirements concerning copies of a document was to make a copy available to each person in the Import Administration team administering the proceeding.  However, with im plementation of electronic filing and the uploading 
of manually filed submissions by CRU onto IA ACCESS, the Import Administration team will be 
able to access all submissions electronically and print them from IA ACCESS, making additional 
copies unnecessary.  In Sec.  351.303(c)(2)(i), th e Department is deleting the sentence defining 
"business proprietary version'' because it has b een included in proposed Sec.  351.303(b)(4). 
 
Section 351.303(c)(2)(i) of the prior regulation stat ed that a person must file one copy of the 
business proprietary version of any document with the Department within the applicable time limit.  
The Department is deleting the reference to the co py and changing "business proprietary version'' to 
"business proprietary document'' to make the term inology consistent with that in 351.303(b)(4)(i) 
and (ii).  The Department is also clarifying that  the one-day lag rule does not apply to a petition, 
amendments to a petition, or any other submission filed prior to the initiation of an investigation.  This 
amendment reflects the Department's practice not to apply the one-day lag rule during the 20-day pre-
initiation period.  This practice ensures that a bus iness proprietary document and public version are 
filed simultaneously in their final form.  When the Department has only 20 days to initiate an 
investigation, waiting one business day for the final ve rsion of a document further shortens an already 
short deadline, especially when petitioners may be re quired to file responses to requests for additional 
information.  In addition, because of the Departme nt's obligation to provide a copy of the public 
version of the petition and all amen dments to the petition to embassies of exporting countries named 
in a petition under Sec.  351.202(f), the Departme nt does not allow submissions under the one-day lag 
rule so that the embassies may obtain their copies as expeditiously as possible.  
 Section 351.303(c)(2)(ii) of the prior regulati on stated that, although a person must file the 
final business proprietary version of a document with the Department, the person may serve only 
those pages containing bracketing corrections on ot her persons.  The Departme nt is amending this 
regulation to replace "business proprietary versio n of a document'' with "business proprietary 
document'' to make the terminology consistent with  that in Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(i) and (ii).  This 
amendment will not change the requirement that a person must file a complete, final business 
proprietary document on the first business day after the business proprietary document is filed.  The 
Department is also amending this regulation to sp ecify that the final business proprietary document 
must be identical in all respects to the business pr oprietary document filed on the previous day, except 
for any bracketing corrections and the omission of the warning "Bracketing of Business Proprietary 
Information Is Not Final for One Business Day After Date of Filing,'' in accordance with 
Sec. 351.303(d)(2)(v).  We believe emphasizing that  the two documents must be identical with the 
exception of bracketing corrections and the requis ite warning pertaining to bracketing is necessary 
because, in our experience, there appears to be some  confusion about whether the dates or the content 
of the cover letters of the two documents should remain unchanged.  With this amendment, the 
Department hopes to clarify that, except as discussed  above, the two documents must be identical. 
 
The Department is also amending this regulati on to require persons to serve the complete 
final business proprietary document on other persons only if there are bracketing corrections.  One 
commenter expressed agreement with this proposed change in its comments on the Proposed Rule.  
The new regulation also makes explicit that if th ere are no bracketing corrections, a person need not 
serve a copy of the final business proprietary doc ument on persons on the APO service list.  The 
reason service is not required in the absence of bracketing corrections is that in accordance with 
Sec. 351.303(f), a person will have already served the business proprietary document filed on the due 
date.  If there are no bracketing corrections, then there is no need to serve the business proprietary 
document again.   G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 23 
 
 
  Section 351.303(c)(2)(iv) of the prior regulation stated that if a person serves authorized 
applicants with a business proprietary version of  a document that excludes information in double 
brackets pursuant to Sec.  351.304(b)(2), the person mu st simultaneously file w ith the Department one 
copy of those pages in which information in doubl e brackets has been excluded.  The Department is 
amending this section by adding a reference to S ec.  351.303(b)(4)(iii) and correctly identifying the 
document type as the "Business Proprietary/APO Version.''  The Department now requires a person to file the complete Business Proprietary/APO Version of the document, as opposed to only those pages 
in which the double-bracketed inform ation has been excluded, so that  it has the complete document 
for the official record.  The original purpose of  requiring a copy of only the pages where the double-
bracketed information has been om itted was to conserve the amount of  paper filed by the submitter.  
However, because the document will be filed electroni cally, the submitter will be able to reduce the 
amount of paper used while simultaneously ensu ring that the Department receives the same 
submission that is served on the APO authorized applicants.  
In addition to the foregoing amendments to  Sec.  351.303(c)(1) and 351.303(c)(2)(i)-(iv), the 
Department replaced the term "business proprietary version'' with "business proprietary document'' in 
these sections, as well as in the title of Sec.  351. 303(c).  These amendments make the terminology 
consistent with that in Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(i), (ii), and (iii). 
 
Section 351.303(c)(3) previously required that  if factual information is submitted on 
computer media at the request of the Secretary, it must be accompanied by the number of copies of 
any computer printout specified by the Secretary.  This regulation also required that information on 
computer media must be releasable under APO, cons istent with Sec.  351.305.  The Department is 
deleting the statement that the Secretary may requi re submission of factual information on computer 
media because it implies that the Secretary may ma ke such requests only occasionally.  Over time, the 
Department has requested with increasing frequency the submission of sales and cost databases to 
accompany questionnaire responses.  This practice has become the norm rather than the exception.  In 
order to clarify how such electronic databases should be submitted in conjunction with the electronic filing requirement, the Department is amending this secti on to require that all sales files, cost files, or 
other electronic databases submitted to the Department  be filed electronically in the format specified 
by the Department.  For the final rule, the Department  has revised this language to clarify the situation 
in which a submitter would file a database manually , citing to Sec.  351.303(b)(2)(ii)(A), which 
requires large data files to be filed manually.  The Department is also amending Sec.  351.303(c)(3) to 
remind submitters that all electronic database inform ation must be releasable under APO regardless of 
whether it is filed electronically or manually.  
The Department wants to emphasize that the co mplete databases submitted by the parties will 
now be maintained in an electronic format in th e official and public files.  Previously, parties 
submitted only one electronic copy of the database,  which became the worki ng copy used by the 
Department in performing its calc ulations.  The official and public records only contained hardcopy 
printouts of the databases, and oftentimes, the pr intouts reflected only a portion of the databases if 
they were voluminous.  Because the Department will  have the capability to accept the databases in an 
electronic format, the Department has had to c onsider how parties can bracket or seek business 
proprietary treatment for information on the databas es when the format in which the data is presented 
does not allow for the use of brackets to indicate th e information for which the submitter is requesting 
business proprietary treatment.  Thus, the Department has determined that it will deem all databases 
containing business proprietary information that are submitted in electronic format as business 
proprietary submissions.  Brackets will not be required on the electronic databases.  However, the 
Department urges submitters to include, where possible, headers or footers requesting business 
proprietary treatment of the information on the da tabases.  For public versions of databases, the 
Department requires submitters to submit the public version in a PD F format.  The public version of 
the database must still be publicly summarized and ranged in accordance with Sec.  351.304(c).  The G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 24 
 
 
  public version of the database, together with th e narrative portion of a questionnaire response, will 
indicate the fields and values for which the s ubmitter requests business proprietary treatment.  
Deeming the entire electronic database as business pr oprietary will not render each and every field 
and value submitted in the database as elig ible for business proprietary treatment. 
 
One commenter stated that the Department al ready envisions that databases may be filed 
electronically, where possible, therefore IA ACCESS should accommodate the filing of electronic files other than PDF files, where appropriate.  The Department has selected PDF as the appropriate 
file format for documents because the Department s eeks a uniform format that is widely available, 
acceptable by users, and compatible with most comput er systems.  Furthermore, as a PDF, the content 
of the submissions cannot be altere d and the PDF format ensures that the Department will be able to 
open the submissions in the future.  With regard  to databases, submitters should refer to the 
questionnaire or specific request for information by the Department to determine the acceptable 
formats for the requested databases.  The Departme nt has also made available in the IA ACCESS 
Handbook additional information as to file types acc epted in IA ACCESS and specific instructions 
which parties must follow when filing databases.  Section 351.303(d).  Format of Submissions  
The Department is amending Sec.  351.303(d) to  make references to the filing terminology 
consistent with the other terminology used in the r est of this section. Specifically, the Department has 
replaced the term "copies'' with "submissions'' becau se, as stated above, the Department will no longer 
require a person to file multiple copies of a submission.  
Section 351.303(d)(2) provides the specifications  and markings required for filing documents 
with the Department.  Paragraph (d)(2) specifies that a person must submit documents on letter-size 
paper, single-sided, and double-spaced, and that the first page of each document must contain information in the formats described in subparagr aphs (i) through (vi).  The Department amended 
paragraph (d)(2) to specify the dimensions of le tter-size paper (8\1/2\ x 11 inches).  Because CRU 
staff will need to insert all manually filed submissi ons into a scanner, the Department requires that 
manually filed documents be bound only with a paper clip, butterfly/binder clip, or rubber band.  The 
omission of binding will ensure that the paper in  the submission is not damaged, thereby facilitating 
the scanning process.  Thus, the Department has prohib ited the use of stapled, spiral, velo, or other 
type of solid binding in manual submissions.  The Department has also amended paragraph (d)(2) to 
require the placement of the cover sheet described in paragraph (b)(3) before the first page of the 
document being manually filed.  With regard to electronically filed documents, the new regulation 
specifies that the document be formatted to prin t on letter-size (8\1/2\ x 11 inch) paper and double-
spaced.  The new regulation also specifies that spre adsheets, unusually sized exhibits, and databases 
are best utilized in their original printing form at and should not be reformatted for submission. 
  Section 351.303(d)(2)(iii) of our prior regula tion required submitters to indicate on the third 
line of the upper right-hand corner the segment of a proceeding for which a document is being filed 
and, if for a review, the inclusive dates of the re view, the type of review, and section number of the 
Act corresponding to the type of review.  The Depa rtment is amending Sec.  351.303(d)(2)(iii) to 
replace the current list of types of segments with  a non-exhaustive list.  The new regulation also 
provides a specific date format for use in indicating the period of review, if relevant.  The Department 
has eliminated the requirement that the submitter indicate the relevant section of the Act that 
corresponds to the type of review for which the do cument is submitted.  Th e Department has observed 
that this marking requirement is often overlooked by submitters, and when it is included, submitters 
often refer only to section 751 of the Act without referring to the specific subsection.  Because the 
new regulation requires a submitter to indicate the specific segment of a proceeding in which a  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 25 
 
 
  document is being filed, the Department has dete rmined it would be redundant to also require the 
submitter to specify the particular subsection of  the Act corresponding to the type of review. 
  The Department is also amending Sec.  351. 303(d)(2)(v) to make it consistent with the 
terminology in Sec.  351.303(b)(4).  Specifically, the prior regulation required that, on the fifth and 
subsequent lines of each submission, a submitter mu st indicate whether any portion of the document 
contains business proprietary information and, if so , to list the applicable page numbers and state 
either "Document May Be Released Under APO'' or  "Document May Not Be Released Under APO.''  
The Department is changing the terminology so that  the term "Document'' is replaced with either 
"Business Proprietary Document -'' or "Business Propri etary/APO Version,'' as applicable, so that it is 
consistent with the terminology in Sec.  351.303(b) (4).  The Department is also capitalizing the first 
letter in the words "is'' and "be'' to correct typograp hical errors.  The prior version of 351.303(d)(2)(v) 
also stated that the warning "Bracketing of Busi ness Proprietary Information Is Not Final for One 
Business Day After Date of Filing'' must not be  included in "the copies of the final business 
proprietary version filed on the next business day.''  The Department is deleting the term "the copies 
of'' because a submitter will no longer be filing mul tiple copies of a submission, in accordance with 
proposed Sec.  351.303(b)(2)(v).  The Department is also replacing the term "business proprietary 
version'' with "business proprietary document'' to make the terminology consistent with that in 
Sec. 351.303(b)(4).  
 Section 351.303(d)(2)(vi) of the prior regulati on required that public versions of business 
proprietary documents contain the marking requirement s in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)-(v) of this section and 
that the first page is conspicuously marked ``Publ ic Version.''  The Department is amending this 
section to refer to both the public version and the busi ness proprietary document in the singular.  This 
amendment clarifies that there is only one public version of a business proprietary document.  The 
Department is also adding subpa ragraph 351.303(d)(2)(vii) to th is section to require the same 
markings for a "Public Document'' as for a "Public Version,'' with the exception being use of the word 
"Document'' instead of "Version.''  These amendmen ts bring the language in this section into 
conformity with the document cl assifications in paragraph (b)(4). 
 Section 351.303(f). Service of Copies on Other Persons 
 
 Section 351.303(f) of the pr ior regulation stated that except as provided in sections 
351.202(c), 351.207(f)(1), a nd paragraph (f)(3) of this section, a person filing a document with the 
Department simultaneously must serve a copy of the document on all other persons on the service list 
by personal service or first class mail.  Th e Department is changing the reference to 
Sec. 351.207(f)(1) to Sec.  351.208(f)(1) to correct a typographical error. 
 
Section 351.303(f)(1)(ii) of the prior regulation st ated that a party may serve a public version 
or a business proprietary version of a document c ontaining only the server's own business proprietary 
information on persons on the service list by facsimile or other electronic transmission process, with the consent of the person to be served.  The De partment is changing the reference to "business 
proprietary version of a document'' to "business proprietary document'' to make the terminology 
consistent with that used in Sec.  351.303(b)(4).  The Department is also specifying that the business 
proprietary document may be served on persons on the APO service list and that the public version of 
such a document may be served on persons on the public service list by facsimile transmission or other electronic transmission process, with the consent of the person to be served. 
 
One commenter asked the Department to clarif y in Sec.  351.303(f) that public documents 
may also be served electronically.  The Department  has amended this regulation to include public 
documents in the types of documents that may be served by facsimile or other electronic transmission with the consent of the party being served. G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 26 
 
 
  One commenter stated that changes affecting service of business proprietary information 
should be introduced gradually, subject to extensiv e comment.  Another commenter stated that the 
Department should mandate electronic service to pa rties on the respective service list (where allowed 
under the Department's regulations).  That commenter noted that elect ronic service is consistent with 
the Department's stated goal of creating efficien cies in both the process and costs associated with 
filing and maintaining documents, and that electroni c service would be consistent with the Court of 
International Trade's filing system currently in pl ace.  The commenter stated that the Department 
could expressly state that electronic service will not be mandatory where a document is filed manually. 
 
The Department agrees that changes affecti ng service of business proprietary information 
should be introduced gradually and be subject to comment.  With the exception of service of APO 
applications, which were previously required to be served by the same means as they were filed with 
the Department (Sec.  351.305(b)(2)), and the requi rement that parties serve the complete final 
business proprietary document when bracketing corr ections are made under the one-day lag rule 
(Sec. 351.303(c)(2)(ii)), the Department has not changed any of the service requirements in the 
regulations.  The Department has decided to focus on  electronic filing, rather than electronic service, 
at this time.  However, parties may continue to  consent to electronic service in accordance with 
Sec. 351.303(f)(1)(ii).  
Although the Department had proposed correc ting a typographical error in Sec.  351.303(g), 
that regulation is currently the subject of anothe r rulemaking.  See 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011).  
Therefore, the Department has not  made any changes to Sec.  351.303(g) in this final rule. 
 
Sections 351.304(b), 351.304(c), and 351.304(d). Identification of Business Proprietary 
Information, Public Version, and Returning Submi ssions That Do Not Conform With Section 777(b) 
of the Act  
Section 351.304(b)(2)(iii) of the prior regula tion stated that "the submitting person may 
exclude the information in double brackets from the business proprietary information version of the submission served on authorized applicants.''  The Department is amending th is sentence to replace 
"business proprietary information version'' with "Business Proprietary/APO Version'' to make the 
terminology consistent with th at in Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(iii). 
 
In addition, the Department is amending S ec.  351.304(b)(1) by creating two subsections. 
Subsection 351.304(b)(1)(i) addresses the identif ication of business proprietary information in 
general, and subsection 351.304( b)(1)(ii) addresses the identification of business proprietary 
information with regard to electronic databases.  The Department is specifying in the latter subsection 
that in accordance with Sec.  351.303(c)(3), an electronic database containing business proprietary 
information need not contain brackets for the su bmitter to request proprietary treatment for its 
information. Instead, the submitter must select the security classification "Business Proprietary 
Document--May Be Released Under APO'' at the time of filing to request business proprietary 
treatment of the information contained in the database. 
 
Section 351.304(c) of the prior regulation prov ided requirements for filing the public version 
of a business proprietary document.  Section 351.3 04(c)(1) specified, among other things, that the 
public version must be filed on the first business day after the f iling deadline for the "business 
proprietary version of the submission.''  The Department is amending this section to replace "business 
proprietary version of the submission'' with "busin ess proprietary document'' to make the terminology 
consistent with that in Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(i) and (ii).   G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 27 
 
 
  Section 351.304(c)(2) of the prior regulation specified, among other things, that if a 
submitting party discovers that it failed to bracket  information correctly, the submitter may file a 
complete, corrected "business proprietary version of  the submission'' along with the public version. 
The Department is amending this section to replace "business proprietary version of the submission'' 
with "business proprietary document'' to make  the terminology consistent with that in 
Sec. 351.303(b)(4)(i) and (ii).   One commenter asked the Department to ame nd Sec.  351.304(c), which currently states that 
if an individual portion of the numerical data is voluminous, at least one percent representative of that 
portion must be summarized.  The commenter propo sed limiting the amount of information to be 
summarized from one percent of the portion of the data to one percent of the entire submission 
because the ranging of data takes a considerable am ount of time and increases the cost of compliance 
with the regulation.  The Department did not propose any changes to this section of the regulations in 
the Proposed Rule.  Further, the Department conti nues to find that requiring public summarization of 
one percent of each portion of data best implemen ts section 777(b)(1)(B) of the Act, which requires 
public summaries of information submitted to the De partment, and best serves the ability of the public 
to participate in the Department 's proceedings.  Thus, the Department has not made the requested 
change in the final rule.  
Section 351.304(d)(1) of the prior regulation stated  that the Secretary will return a submission 
that does not meet the requirements of section 777(b)  of the Act, which governs the Department's 
APO rules of practice and procedure.  Section 351.304(d)(1) of the prior regulation further specified that the submitting person may take any of four en umerated actions within two business days of the 
Secretary's explanation of its reasons for returning th e submission.  Prior Sec.  351.304(d)(1)(iv) also 
specified that one of those enumerated actions is  the submission of other material concerning the 
subject matter of the returned information and that, if the submitting person takes none of the 
enumerated actions, the Secretary will not consider  the returned submission.  As discussed above, 
because the Department will be using an electronic filing system, rather than physically return an 
electronic submission, the Department will instead re ject the submission.  The Department will follow 
the same procedure for manually filed submissi ons.  Thus, the Department is amending the 
regulations to change the term "return'' with "reject'' in sections 351.304(d)(1) and 351.304(d)(1)(iv). 
 
Section 351.305(b).  Application for A ccess Under Administrative Protective Order 
  Section 351.305(b)(2) of the prior regulati on required the applicant for access to business 
proprietary information under APO to serve the APO application in the same manner and at the same 
time as it serves the application on the Department.  The Department is amending this regulation 
because an applicant cannot currently serve other pa rties electronically using IA ACCESS.  Although 
an applicant may serve other parties electronically with the consent of the parties being served, the 
Department will not require electronic service.  The Department recognizes that a party being served an APO application has a limited time period in  which to serve its previously-filed business 
proprietary submissions on a newly-approved applican t; therefore, the Department is requiring that 
the applicant serve the other parties in the most expeditious manner possible, simultaneously with the 
filing of the APO application with the Department. G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 28 
 
 
  Comments Pertaining to Pilot Program, Implemen tation, and Technical Aspects of IA ACCESS 
 
1. Future Pilot Programs, Additional Focus Groups, Training, and Staggered Implementation 
 
One commenter stated that it supports the De partment's plans to conduct additional pilot 
programs and strongly suggests that the Department consider a mechanism by  which the experiences 
gained in the first pilot program can  be shared with the larger user public.  The commenter stated that 
the Department should conduct additional focus groups  and public meetings fo r Release 2 and 3 Pilots 
and that the Department should co nsider holding larger scale public meetings.  With regard to 
implementation of IA ACCESS, one commenter pr oposed a staggered implementation process, such 
that the Department would first require electronic f iling of only public documents for a period of time 
before requiring electronic filing of business proprieta ry documents.  The commenter stated that users 
may not have experience with the electronic f iling of business proprietary documents, and the 
staggered implementation would a llow users time to implement new internal procedures, including 
security measures, or seek guidance from the Department on particular matters, based on practical 
prior experience with public filings.  In addition, the commenter stated that  the Department should 
consider providing training sessions prior to the st art of Release 1, noting that the training sessions 
conducted by the Court of International Trade for its electronic filing system were helpful.  The 
commenter also stated that the Department should consider a "recall'' procedure to enable users to 
promptly remove electronically filed documents if business proprietary information has been 
inadvertently disclosed or other problems are discovered after filing. 
 
Response:  As discussed in the notice regard ing the IA ACCESS pilot program, IA ACCESS 
will be implemented in three separate phases, or  releases, with each release implementing an 
additional feature of IA ACCESS. 75 FR 32341 (J une 8, 2010).  Release 1 will allow for the 
electronic submission of documents, Release 2 w ill allow for the electronic release of public 
documents and public versions, and Release 3 will allow for the electronic release of business 
proprietary documents to authorized applicants.  Each phase will be preceded by a pilot program 
designed to test and evaluate the functionality of th at release.  The Department completed the pilot 
program for Release 1 on September 30, 2010.  The Department received comments from pilot participants at the conclusion of the pilot and a su mmary of those comments is available to the public 
at http://iaaccess.trade.gov  under the "Help'' link.  Comments on the second and third pilot programs 
will also be made available to the public in th e same manner.  The Department will hold additional 
focus groups and public meeti ngs in conjunction with the Release 2 and 3 pilot programs.  The 
Department will consider a large public meeting as the need arises. 
 
The Department disagrees with the proposal to  stagger the implementation of the electronic 
filing requirement such that only public filings w ill first be required for a period of time before 
requiring the filing of business proprietary documents .  Staggering the implementation for public and 
business proprietary submissions is not practicable because it would require the Department to operate 
under two filing systems, one for public documents and one for proprietary documents, and such a 
bifurcated process would create the potential for confus ion and inconsistency.  Furthermore, requiring 
parties to manually file business proprietary submissi ons while electronically filing public versions of 
the corresponding submission will create additional wo rk for parties and reduce the efficiencies 
inherent in electronic filing.  
To alleviate the concerns associated with lear ning to use IA ACCESS, the Department will 
provide an IA ACCESS online training site one m onth prior to implementing Release 1.  On the 
training site, users will be able to familiarize th emselves with IA ACCESS by filing test documents 
and navigating the system.  The Department has already provided and will continue to provide 
training prior to implementing Release 1, includi ng online demonstrations, webinars and classes.  
Such training will provide users opportunities to conf er with the Department regarding any questions  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 29 
 
 
  pertaining to the system, including the implementa tion of any necessary procedures for the user, such 
as security measures.  
With regard to a "recall'' procedure, the De partment did not adopt this proposal.  The 
Department believes that the con tinuation of its current practice of providing assistance to those 
parties wishing to correct errors discovered afte r filing is the most effective way to address 
inadvertent disclosures.  Where problems are disc overed after filing, the user should contact the 
Department for assistance.  Detailed procedures are included in the IA ACCESS Handbook.  Where business proprietary information is inadvertently di sclosed and only discovered after filing, the user 
should contact the APO/Dockets Unit as soon as possible. 
 2. Grace Period  
One commenter proposed a three-month grace period  whereby the Department allows users to 
file submissions manually, at the option of the user. 
 
Response:  The Department will not provide such a three-month grace period. Allowing a 
grace period would be extremely disruptive for the Department because it would require the 
Department to operate and synchronize two different filing, document management, and 
recordkeeping systems. As discussed above, however,  the Department will provide an online training 
site one month prior to implementa tion of Release 1, so that users may have an opportunity to try out 
the system, practice filing test documents a nd familiarize themselves with IA ACCESS. 
 3. Opportunities for Further Comment  
One commenter requested that the Department  provide an opportunity to submit additional 
comments prior to publication of the final rule, including comments on other parties' comments on the proposed rule and on the views of the participants to the Release 1 pilot program.  In addition, the 
commenter stated that the Depa rtment should make the IA ACCE SS Handbook available prior to the 
start of Release 1 to allow users to become fa miliar with the new electronic filing rules and 
procedures before introduction of mandatory electr onic filing.  Two commenters requested that the 
Department provide an opportunity to su bmit comments on the upcoming IA ACCESS Handbook. 
  Response:  The IA ACCESS Handbook is currently  available.  Parties will be given the 
opportunity to submit comments on the hand book on the IA AC CESS Web site at 
http://iaaccess.trade.gov .  The Department will post a summary of the comments online and take them 
into consideration.  The Department will not provide a formal opportunity for parties to comment on 
the Release 1 pilot participants' comments nor on th e other parties' comments to the Proposed Rule.  
There is no such requirement in the rulemaking process. See 5 U.S.C. 553(c). As the Department continues to add enhancements and features to IA  ACCESS, it will welcome parties' input on an 
ongoing basis.  
4. Comments on Pilot Experience 
 
The Department received the following tec hnical comments based on the commenters' 
experiences during the pilot program:  (1) The case name should be automatically populated by case number; segments should show up in drop-down menu;  (2) the Department should expand the 
number of characters for document title and file name ;  (3) "document type'' and "subject'' options 
have not been appropriate to the filings, so "Other'' was often sel ected;  (4) the Department should 
refine the "document type'' and "subject'' options and provide the ability to customize by typing in 
words prior to or after the standard types/subjects;   (5) the Department should provide an "approval'' G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 30 
 
 
  or confirmation screen prior to submission;  and (6) one commenter wished to confirm that the 
Department personnel have the ability to review and print documents in color. 
 
Response:  The Department is considering these comments as it develops the IA ACCESS 
system. A summary of these comments in addition to  others received at the conclusion of the 
Release 1 pilot program is available on th e Department's IA ACCESS Web site at 
http://iaaccess.trade.gov  under the "Help'' link. 
 
5. After-Hours Help Line 
 
One commenter recommended the Department to  establish a help line that has relevant 
personnel available after 5 p.m. Eastern Time to assist with electronic submissions.  
Response:  A help line will be available and staffed with relevant personnel between 8:30 
a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days to assist submitters with any technical issues.  We encourage parties 
to give themselves ample time prior to 5 p.m. on the due date to successfully complete submissions using IA ACCESS.  Further, parties who cannot m eet the 5 p.m. filing deadline should request an 
extension from the relevant personnel in the Office of Operations.  Because personnel at the Help 
Line cannot grant such extensions, after-hours assistance should not be necessary.  
6. Destruction of Files 
 
One commenter stated that it understood that IA ACCESS will host only documents received 
after the launch of the electronic document system , and that the Department currently does not 
envision scanning older documents already in the Official File.  Currently, the Department is 
destroying or in the process of destroying files from proceedings that have been terminated for five 
years or more.  This destruction practice would appe ar inconsistent with th e goal of expanding public 
access to information.  If older documents are destro yed as a matter of course, then parties are at a 
disadvantage in preparing for ongoing proceedings  because some documenta tion relied upon is only 
available in paper form.  The commenter recommended that the Department reconsider its destruction 
practice and work towards making all existing pa per documentation and s ubmissions from prior 
proceedings available to the public as pa rt of a docket for that proceeding. 
 
Response:  The Department's current document retention policy requires it to keep the Public 
File for five years after an order has closed.  The Department plans to continue following this 
retention policy, which the Department believes makes the information su fficiently accessible to the 
public.  The Department will not scan older documen ts into IA ACCESS that are already in the 
Official File.  Doing so would be costly and an in efficient use of the Depart ment's resources.  Older 
files will continue to be available in the Public Reading Room in accordance with the Department's 
retention policy.  
Comments Pertaining to Procedures for Rele ase of Public and Business Proprietary 
Information Under APO Using IA ACCESS  
In the Proposed Rule, the Department stated  that it was considering providing for the 
implementation of electronic APO release as part of the overall transition to IA ACCESS.  The Department requested comments on the APO release pr ocess, the adequacy of providing for electronic 
release in the APO, and the necessity of additiona l security requirements in the APO application. 
 
In response to the Department's request for comments, one commenter expressed its support 
for the Department's approach.  Another comme nter recommended a system whereby the lead 
attorney for service and any other designated author ized individuals will be notified via e-mail that a  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 31 
 
 
  new document has been posted to a particular record and that the authorized user would be able to 
access the document by logging into the secure data base to upload the document on the authorized 
user's secure server.  The commenter also requested  that the same release process apply to documents 
filed by parties or placed on the record by Department personnel, thereby effecting service via 
electronic notification.  Another commenter stated th at the Proposed Rule did not specify whether, in 
addition to APO release, the Department also plans public electronic release to authorized 
representatives of interested parties who have entere d an appearance.  The commenter encouraged the 
Department to adopt this practice, either as pa rt of formal rulemaking or under its IA ACCESS 
procedures. 
 
In addition to the electronic APO release pr ocess through IA ACCESS, the Department plans 
to release public Department-generated documents  and public versions of Department-generated 
business proprietary documents using IA ACCESS.  Th e Department plans to notify the lead attorney 
for service and any other designated authorized indi viduals via e-mail that a new document has been 
posted to a particular segment.  The authorized in dividual would then be able to securely access the 
document.  
The Department has not implemented a similar release process to effect service of documents 
filed by interested parties on one another.  As discussed above, with the exception of service of APO applications in Sec.  351.305(b)(2) and the requireme nt that parties serve the complete final business 
proprietary document when bracketing changes ha ve been made in Sec.  351.303(c)(2)(ii), the 
Department has not changed the service requirement s in the regulations.  However, parties may 
continue to consent to electronic service in accord ance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(ii) and continue to 
serve one another in accordance with this provision.  
One commenter stated that it supports the Depa rtment's approach to electronic release under 
APO using the IA ACCESS system, but it urges the Department to impose conditions on such 
document releases, such as prohi biting access to another party's business proprietary information 
using file servers, networks and other electroni c data storage and transmission devices located 
overseas or accessible to the public (such as com puters in libraries and Internet cafes).  The 
commenter stated that use of such systems woul d greatly increase the likelihood of unauthorized 
interception of and access to the business pr oprietary information of another party. 
 
The commenter also encouraged the Department to retain the requirement that authorized 
applicants certify that they will "ensure that busin ess proprietary information in an electronic format 
will not be accessible to parties not authorized to  receive business proprietary information'' in all 
future APOs.  The commenter proposed requiring, as an additional safeguard, that all applicants for 
access to business proprietary information under an  APO further specify (as part of their APO 
applications) each location from which they will access electronic documents containing business 
proprietary information of another interested party.   According to the commenter, other interested 
parties should be permitted to comment on such app lications and have their comments considered by 
the Department as part of its review of the APO application. 
 
The Department is committed to securing the business proprietary information of parties 
participating in its proceedings.  The Department ha s determined that it is not necessary for applicants 
for APO access to specify the location from which they will access electronic documents containing 
business proprietary information of another interested  party.  The Department already requires parties 
to use diligence in protecting other interested pa rties' business proprietary information and will 
continue to allow the firms to develop their ow n internal procedures to ensure that business 
proprietary information is downloaded in a secure manner.  In a ddition, the Department will continue 
to address the improper release of business proprietary  information through its sanctions proceedings 
at 19 CFR part 354. G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 32 
 
 
  Classification 
 E.O. 12866  
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. 
 Regulatory Flexibility Act  
The Chief Counsel for Regulation has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (``SBA'') under the pr ovisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small business entities. The fact ual basis for the certification was published in 
the Proposed Rule and is not repeated here. The Department received no comments questioning or 
regarding this certification. 
 
Paperwork Reduction Act   This rule does not contain 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, An tidumping, Business and industry, Cheese, 
Confidential business information, Countervailing duti es, Freedom of information, Investigations, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 
 
 Dated: June 22, 2011. 
Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. 
 PART 351--ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES 
 
0 1. The authority citation for 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. Section 351.103 is revised to read as follows:  Sec.  351.103  Central Records Unit and Admini strative Protective Order and Dockets Unit. 
 
(a) Import Administration's Central Records Unit maintains a Public File Room in Room 7046, U.S. 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.  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) Import Administration's Administrative Protective Order and Dockets Unit 
(APO/Dockets Unit) is locate d in Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 33 
 
 
  and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington , DC 20230.  The office hours of the 
APO/Dockets Unit are between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time on business days.  Among other things, the APO/Dockets Unit is responsible  for receiving submissions from interested 
parties, issuing administrative protective orde rs (APOs), maintaining the APO service list and 
the public service list as provided for in para graph (d) of this section, releasing business 
proprietary information under APO, and con ducting APO violation investigations.  The 
APO/Dockets Unit also is the c ontact point for questions and co ncerns regarding claims for 
business proprietary treatment of information and proper public versions of submissions 
under Sec.  351.105 and Sec.  351.304. 
 
(c) Filing of documents with the Department . No document will be considered as having 
been received by the Secretary unless it is  electronically filed in accordance with 
Sec. 351.303(b)(2)(i) or, where applicable, in accordance with Sec.  351.303(b)(2)(ii), it is 
manually submitted to the Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit in Room 1870 and is 
stamped with the date, and, where necessary, th e time, of receipt.  A manually filed document 
must be submitted with a cover sheet, in  accordance with Sec.  351.303(b)(3). 
 
(d) Service list.  The APO/Dockets Unit w ill maintain and make available a public 
service list for each segment of a proceeding.  The service list for an application for a scope 
ruling is described in Sec.  351.225(n). 
 
(1) With the exception of a petitioner filing a petition in an investigation, all persons wishing to 
participate in a segment of a proceeding must file a letter of appearance.  The letter of appearance must identify the name of the intere sted party, how that party qualifies as an interested party under 
Sec.  351.102(b)(29) and section 771(9) of the Act, a nd the name of the firm, if any, representing the 
interested party in that particular segment of the proceeding.  All persons who file a letter of 
appearance and qualify as an interested party will be  included in the public service list for the segment 
of the proceeding in which the letter of appearance is submitted.  The letter of appearance may be 
filed as a cover letter to an application for APO access.  If the representative of the party is not 
requesting access to business proprietary information under APO, the letter of appearance must be filed separately from any other document filed with the Department.  If the interested party is a 
coalition or association as defined in subparagraph (A), (E), (F) or (G) of section 771(9) of the Act, 
the letter of appearance must identify all of the members of the coalition or association. 
 (2) Each interested party that asks to be in cluded on the public service list for a segment of a 
proceeding must designate a person to receive service of documents filed in that segment. 
 
0 3. Section 351.104 is amended by revising paragr aphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b) to read as follows: 
 Sec.  351.104  Record of proceedings.  
(a) Official record--(1) In general.  The Secret ary will maintain an official record of each 
antidumping and countervailing duty proceeding.  The Secretary will include in the official record all factual information, written argument,  or other material developed by, presented to, 
or obtained by the Secretary during the course of a proceeding that pertains to the proceeding.  The official record will include government  memoranda pertaining to the proceeding, 
memoranda of ex parte meetings, determinati ons, notices published in the Federal Register, 
and transcripts of hearings.  The official reco rd will contain material that is public, business 
proprietary, privileged, and classified.  For purposes of section 516A(b)(2) of the Act, the record is the official record of  each segment of the proceeding. 
 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 34 
 
 
  (2) Material rejected. (i)  The Secretary, in ma king any determination under this part, will not use 
factual information, written argument, or other material that the Secretary rejects.   (ii) The official record will include a copy of a rejected document, solely for purposes of 
establishing and documenting the basis for rejecting the document, if the document was 
rejected because: 
 
(A) The document, although otherwise time ly, contains untimely filed new factual 
information (see Sec.  351.301(b)); 
(B) The submitter made a nonconforming request for business proprietary treatment of 
factual information (see Sec.  351.304); 
(C) The Secretary denied a request for business proprietary treatment of factual 
information (see Sec.  351.304); 
(D) The submitter is unwilling to permit the disclosure of business proprietary 
information under APO (see Sec.  351.304). 
 
(iii) In no case will the official record include any document that the Secretary rejects as 
untimely filed, or any unsolicited questionnaire response unless the response is a voluntary response accepted under Sec.  351. 204(d) (see Sec.  351.302(d)). 
 
(b) Public record.  The Secretary will mainta in a public record of each proceeding.  The 
record will consist of all material contained in the official record (see paragraph (a) of this 
section) that the Secretary decides is public information under Sec.  351.105(b), government memoranda or portions of memoranda that the Secretary decides may be disclosed to the 
general public, and public versions  of all determinations, notices, and transcripts.  The public 
record will be available to the public for insp ection and copying in the Central Records Unit 
(see Sec.  351.103).  The Secretary will charge an appropriate fee for providing copies of documents. 
 * * * * *  
0 
4. Section 351.302 is amended by revising para graphs (a), (c) and (d) to read as follows: 
 Sec.  351.302  Extension of time limits; rejec tion of untimely filed or unsolicited material. 
 
(a) Introduction.  This section sets forth the procedures for requesting an extension of a 
time limit.  In addition, this section explains th at certain untimely filed or unsolicited material 
will be rejected together with an explanation of  the reasons for the rejection of such material. 
 * * * * *  
(c) Requests for extension of specific time limit. Before the applicable time limit 
specified under Sec.  351.301 expires, a party may request an extension pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.  The request must be in writing, filed consistent with 
Sec. 351.303, and state the reasons for the request .  An extension granted to a party must be 
approved in writing. 
 
(d) Rejection of untimely filed or unsolicited material. (1)  Unless the Secretary extends a 
time limit under paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary will not consider or retain in the 
official record of the proceeding: 
  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 35 
 
 
  (i) Untimely filed factual information, written argument, or other material that the 
Secretary rejects, except as provided under Sec.  351.104(a)(2);  or 
 
(ii) Unsolicited questionnaire responses, exce pt as provided under Sec.  351.204(d)(2). 
 
(2) The Secretary will reject such information,  argument, or other material, or unsolicited 
questionnaire response with, to the extent practicable , written notice stating the reasons for rejection. 
 0 
5. Section 351.303 is amended by revising the secti on heading and paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), 
and (f)(1) to read as follows:  Sec.  351.303 Filing, document identification, fo rmat, translation, service, and certification of 
documents. 
 
(a) Introduction.  This section contains the pr ocedural rules regarding filing, document 
identification, format, service, translation, a nd certification of documents and applies to all 
persons submitting documents to the Department for consideration in an antidumping or 
countervailing duty proceeding. 
 
(b) Filing--(1) In general.  Persons must address all documents to the Secretary of 
Commerce, Attention:  Import Administration, APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230.  An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.  
Where applicable, a submitter must manually file  a document between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 
and 5 p.m. Eastern Time on business days (see Sec.  351.103(b)).  For both electronically filed and manually filed documents, if the appli cable due date falls on a non-business day, the 
Secretary will accept documents that are filed on the next business day.  A manually filed document must be accompanied by a cover sh eet generated in IA ACCESS, in accordance 
with Sec.  351.303(b)(3). 
 
(2) Filing of documents and databases--(i) Electroni c filing.  A person must file all documents 
and databases electronically using IA ACCESS at http://iaaccess.trade.gov .  A person making a filing 
must comply with the procedures set forth in the IA ACCESS Handbook on Electronic Filing 
Procedures, which is available on the Department's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/ia . 
 
(ii) Manual filing.  (A) Notwithstanding Sec.   351.303(b)(2)(i), a person must manually 
file a data file that exceeds the file si ze limit specified in the IA ACCESS Handbook on 
Electronic Filing Procedures and as referenced in  Sec.  351.303(c)(3), and the data file must 
be accompanied by a cover sheet described in Sec.  351.303(b)(3).  A person may manually file a bulky document.  If a person elects to manually file a bulky document, it must be 
accompanied by a cover sheet described in Sec.  351.303(b)(3).  The Department both 
provides specifications for large data files and defines bulky document standards in the IA 
ACCESS Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures,  which is available on the Department's 
Web site at http://www.trade.gov/ia . 
 
(B) If the IA ACCESS system is unable to accep t filings continuously or intermittently 
over the course of any period of time greater than one hour between 12 noon and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time or for any duration of time between 4:31 p.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, then a person may manually file the document in the APO/Dockets 
Unit.  The Department will provide notice of such technical failures on its Help Desk G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 36 
 
 
  line.  Procedures for manual filing in this situation are provided in the IA ACCESS 
Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures. 
 
(C) Apart from the documents and database fil es described in Sec.  351.303(b)(2)(ii)(A), 
if a submitter is unable to comply with the electronic filing requirement, as provided 
in Sec.  351.103(c), and in accordance w ith section 782(c) of the Act, the submitter 
must notify the Department promptly of the reasons the submitter is unable to file the 
document electronically, provide a full explan ation, and suggest alternative forms in 
which to submit the information.  The De partment will consider the ability of the 
submitter and may modify the electronic filing requirement on a case-by-case basis. 
 
(D) Number of hardcopies for manual filing.  If a document is filed manually, the 
submitter must file one hardcopy of the doc ument in the APO/Dockets Unit, along with a 
cover sheet generated in IA ACCESS.  If the document contains business proprietary 
information, the submitter must file one ha rdcopy of the business proprietary document and 
one hardcopy of the public version, along w ith the requisite IA ACCESS-generated cover 
sheets. If applicable, the submitter must also file one hardcopy of the business 
proprietary/APO version, along with the requisite IA ACCESS-generated cover sheet.  For a 
bulky document, in addition to the foregoing, the submitter must also provide one additional 
hardcopy of the business proprietary docume nt or public document, as applicable. 
 
(3) Cover sheet.  When manually filing a document,  parties must complete the cover sheet (as 
described in the IA ACCESS Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures) online at http://iaaccess.trade.gov  and print the cover sheet for s ubmission to the APO/Dockets Unit. 
 
(4) Document identification.  Each document mu st be clearly identified as one of the following 
five document classifications and must conform w ith the requirements under paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section. Business proprietary document or business pr oprietary/APO version, as applicable, means a 
document or a version of a document containing information for which a person claims business 
proprietary treatment under Sec.  351.304.  
(i) Business Proprietary Document--May be Released Under APO. This business 
proprietary document contains single-bracket ed business proprietary information that the 
submitter agrees to release under APO. It must c ontain the statement "May be Released Under 
APO'' in accordance with the requirements unde r paragraph (d)(2)(v) of this section. 
 
(ii) Business Proprietary Document--May Not be Released Under APO.  This business 
proprietary document contains double-bracketed  business proprietary information that the 
submitter does not agree to release under APO.  This document must contain the statement "May Not be Released Under APO'' in accord ance with the requirements under paragraph 
(d)(2)(v) of this section.  This type of document may contain single-bracketed business 
proprietary information in addition to doubl e-bracketed business proprietary information. 
 
(iii) Business Proprietary/APO Version--May be Released Under APO.  In the event that a 
business proprietary document contains bot h single- and double-bracketed business 
proprietary information, the submitting person mu st submit a version of the document with 
the double-bracketed business proprietary informa tion omitted.  This version must contain the 
single-bracketed business proprietary informati on that the submitter agrees to release under 
APO.  This version must be identified as "B usiness Proprietary/APO  Version'' and must 
contain the statement "May be Released Under APO'' in accordance with the requirements under paragraph (d)(2)(v) of this section. 
  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 37 
 
 
  (iv) Public Version.  The public version excludes all business proprietary information, 
whether single- or double-bracketed. Specific filing requirements for public version submissions are discussed in Sec.  351.304(c). 
 
(v) Public Document.  The public document c ontains only public information.  There is 
no corresponding business proprietary document for a public document. 
 
(c) Filing of business proprietary documents a nd public versions under the one-day lag 
rule;  information in double brackets. 
 
(1) In general.  If a submission contains info rmation for which the submitter claims business 
proprietary treatment, the submitter may elect to file the submission under the one-day lag rule 
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.  A petition, an amendment to a petition, and any other 
submission filed prior to the initiation of an investigat ion shall not be filed under the one-day lag rule.  
The business proprietary document and public version of such pre-initiation submissions must be filed 
simultaneously on the same day.  (2) Application of the one-day lag rule--(i) Fili ng the business proprietary document.  A person 
must file a business proprietary document with th e Department within the applicable time limit. 
 
(ii) Filing of final business proprietary document; bracketing corrections.  By the close of 
business one business day after the date the bus iness 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 docum ent filed on the previous day except for any 
bracketing corrections and the omission of the warning "Bracketing of Business Proprietary 
Information Is Not Final for One Business Day After Date of Filing'' in accordance with 
paragraph (d)(2)(v) of this section.  A person must  serve other persons w ith the complete final 
business proprietary document if there are bracketing corrections.  If there are no bracketing corrections, a person need not serve a copy of the final business proprietary document. 
 
(iii) Filing the public version. Simultaneously with the filing of the final business 
proprietary document under paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, a person also must file the 
public version of such document (see S ec.  351.304(c)) with the Department. 
 
(iv) Information in double brackets.  If a person serves authorized applicants with a 
business proprietary/APO version of a document that excludes information in double brackets 
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(iii) and 351.304(b)(2), the person simultaneously must 
file with the Department the complete busin ess proprietary/APO version of the document 
from which information in double brackets has been excluded. 
 (3) Sales files, cost of production files a nd other electronic databases. When a submission 
includes sales files, cost of production files or ot her electronic databases, such electronic databases 
must be filed electronically in accordance with para graph (b)(2) of this section.  If a submitter must 
file the database manually pursuant to Sec.  3 51.303(b)(2)(ii)(A), the submitter must file such 
information on the computer medium specified by the Department's request for such information.  The 
submitter need not accompany the computer medium w ith a paper printout.  All electronic database 
information must be releasable under APO (see Sec.  351.305).  A submitter need not include brackets 
in an electronic database containing business proprieta ry information.  The submitter's selection of the 
security classification "Business Proprietary Docume nt--May Be Released Under APO'' at the time of 
filing indicates the submitter's request for business pr oprietary treatment of the information contained 
in the database.  Where possible, the submitter mu st insert headers or footers requesting business G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 38 
 
 
  proprietary treatment of the information on the databases for printing purposes.  A submitter must 
submit a public version of a database in pdf format .  The public version of the database must be 
publicly summarized and ranged in accordance with Sec.  351.304(c).  
(d) Format of submissions--(1) In general. Un less the Secretary alters the requirements of 
this section, a document filed with the Depart ment must conform to the specification and 
marking requirements under paragr aph (d)(2) of this section or the Secretary may reject such 
document in accordance with Sec.  351.104(a). 
 
(2) Specifications and markings.  If a document is  filed manually, it must be on letter-size (8\1/2\ 
x 11 inch) paper, single-sided and double-spaced, b ound with a paper clip, butterfly/binder clip, or 
rubber band.  The filing of stapled, spiral, velo, or other type of solid bindin g is not permitted.  In 
accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a cove r sheet must be placed before the first page of 
the document.  Electronically filed documents must be formatted to print on letter-size (8\1/2\ x 11 
inch) paper and double-spaced.  Spreadsheets, unusually  sized exhibits, and databases are best utilized 
in their original printing format and should not be refo rmatted for submission.  A submitter must mark 
the first page of each document in the upper right -hand corner with the following information in the 
following format:  
(i) On the first line, except for a petiti on, indicate the Department case number; 
 
(ii) On the second line, indicate the total number of pages in the document including 
cover pages, appendices, and any unnumbered pages; 
 
(iii) On the third line, indicate the specific se gment of the proceeding, (e.g., investigation, 
administrative review, scope inquiry, suspension ag reement, etc.) and, if applicable, indicate 
the complete period of review (MM/DD/YY-MM/DD/YY); 
 
(iv) On the fourth line, except for a petitio n, indicate the Department office conducting 
the proceeding; 
 
(v) On the fifth and subsequent lines, indicate whether any portion of the document 
contains business proprietary information and, if so, list the applicable page numbers and state 
either:  "Business Proprietary Document--May  Be Released Under APO,'' "Business 
Proprietary Document--May Not Be Released U nder APO,'' or "Business Proprietary/APO 
Version--May Be Released Under APO,'' as applicable, and consistent with 
Sec. 351.303(b)(4).  Indicate "Business Proprie tary Treatment Requested'' on the top of each 
page containing business proprietary informa tion.  In addition, include the warning 
"Bracketing of Business Proprietary Informa tion Is Not Final for One Business Day After 
Date of Filing'' on the top of each page cont aining business proprietary information in the 
business proprietary document filed under paragr aph (c)(2)(i) of this section (one-day lag 
rule).  Do not include this warning in the fi nal business proprietary doc ument filed on the next 
business day under paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of th is section (see Sec.  351.303(c)(2) and 
Sec. 351.304(c));  and (vi) For the public ve rsion of a business proprietary document required 
under Sec.  351.304(c), complete the marking as required in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)-(v) of this 
section for the business proprietary document, but conspicuously mark the first page "Public 
Version.'' 
 
(vii) For a public document, complete the ma rking as required in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)-(v) 
of this section for the business proprietary document or version, as applicable, but conspicuously mark the first page "Public Document.''   G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 39 
 
 
  * * * * * 
 (f) * * *  
(1) (i) In general.  Except as provided in Sec.  351.202(c) (filing of petition), 
Sec. 351.208(f)(1) (submission of proposed su spension agreement), and paragraph (f)(3) of 
this section, a person filing a document with the Department simultaneously must serve a 
copy of the document on all other persons on th e service list by personal service or first class 
mail. 
 
(ii) Service of public versions, public docum ents, or a party's own business proprietary 
information. Notwithstanding paragraphs (f)(1)(i ) and (f)(3) of this section, service of a 
business proprietary document containing only the server's own business proprietary information, on persons on the APO service list, or the public version of such a document, or 
a public document on persons on the public service list, may be made by facsimile 
transmission or other electronic transmission pr ocess, with the consent of the person to be 
served. 
 * * * * *  
0 
6. Section 351.304 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2(iii), (c), (d)(1) introductory 
text and (d)(1)(iv) to read as follows:   
Sec.  351.304  Establishing business proprietary treatment of information. 
 * * * * *  
(b) Identification of business proprietary info rmation--(1) Information releasable under 
administrative protective order--(i) In general.  A person submitting information must identify 
the information for which it claims business proprietary treatment by enclosing the 
information within single brackets.  The submitting person must provide with the information an explanation of why each item of bracketed information is entitled to business proprietary 
treatment.  A person submitting a request for business proprietary treatment also must include an agreement to permit disclosure under an administrative protective order, unless the 
submitting party claims that there is a clear a nd compelling need to withhold the information 
from disclosure under an administrative protective order. 
 
(ii) Electronic databases.  In accordance with Sec.  351.303(c)(3), an electronic database 
need not contain brackets.  The submitter mu st select the security classification "Business 
Proprietary Document--May Be Released Under APO'' at the time of filing to request 
business proprietary treatment of the informati on contained in the database.  The public 
version of the database must be publicly summarized and ranged in accordance with 
Sec. 351.304(c). 
 (2)  * * * 
 
(iii) The submitting person may exclude the information in double brackets from the business proprietary/APO version of the submissi on served on authorized applicants. See Sec.  
351.303 for filing and service requirements. 
 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 40 
 
 
  (c) Public version.  (1) A person filing a su bmission that contains information for which 
business proprietary treatment is claimed must f ile a public version of the submission.  The 
public version must be filed on the first busin ess day after the filing deadline for the business 
proprietary document (see Sec.  351.303(b)).  The public version must contain a summary of 
the bracketed information in sufficient deta il to permit a reasonabl e understanding of the 
substance of the information.  If the submitting person claims that summarization is not possible, the claim must be ac companied by a full explanation of the reasons supporting that 
claim.  Generally, numerical data will be c onsidered adequately summarized if grouped or 
presented in terms of indices or figures within 10 pe rcent of the actual figure.  If an individual 
portion of the numerical data is voluminous, at least one percent 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 faile d to bracket information correctly, the submitter 
may file a complete, corrected business proprietary  document along with th e public version (see 
Sec. 351.303(b)).  At the close of business on the day on which the public version of a submission is due under paragraph (c)(2) 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 fi nal.  Once bracketing has become final, the 
Secretary will not accept any further corrections to th e bracketing of information in a submission, and 
the Secretary will treat non-bracketed information as public information. 
 
(d) * * * 
 (1) In general.  The Secretary will reject a s ubmission that does not meet the requirements of 
section 777(b) of the Act and this section with a wr itten explanation.  The s ubmitting person may take 
any of the following actions within two business da ys after receiving the Secretary's explanation: 
 * * *  
(iv) Submit other material concerning the subject  matter of the rejected information.  If 
the submitting person does not take any of these actions, the Secretary will not consider the 
rejected submission. 
 * * *  
0 
7. Section 351.305 is amended by revising  paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: 
 Sec.  351.305  Access to business proprietary information.  * * * 
 
    (b) * * *  (2) A representative of a party to the proceed ing may apply for access to business proprietary 
information under the administrative protective order by submitting Form ITA-367 to the Secretary.  
Form ITA-367 must identify the applicant and the se gment of the proceeding involved, state the basis 
for eligibility of the applicant fo r access to business proprietary info rmation, and state the agreement 
of the applicant to be bound by the administrativ e protective order.  Form ITA-367 may be prepared 
on the applicant's own word processing system, and must be accompanied by a certification that the 
application is consistent with  Form ITA-367 and an acknowledgment that any discrepancies will be  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 41 
 
 
  interpreted in a manner consistent with Form IT A-367.  An applicant must apply to receive all 
business proprietary information on the record of th e segment of a proceeding in question, but may 
waive service of business proprietary information it do es not wish to receive from other parties to the 
proceeding.  An applicant must serve an APO app lication on the other parties by the most expeditious 
manner possible at the same time that it files the application with the Department. 
 * * * * *  
[FR Doc. 2011-16352 Filed 7-5-11;  8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P 
  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 42 
 
 
  [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)] 
[Rules and Regulations] [Pages 7491-7500] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] 
[FR Doc No: 2011-2761] 
  ======================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 International Trade Administration 
 19 CFR Part 351 
 RIN 0625-AA66 [Docket No.:  0612243022-1049-01]   Certification of Factual Information to Impo rt Administration During Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:  Interim Final Rule 
 
AGENCY:   Import Administration, International Trad e Administration, Department of Commerce. 
 
ACTION:   Interim final rule and request for comments. 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  SUMMARY:   The Department of Commerce ("the Depa rtment'') is amending its regulation which 
governs the certification of factual information submi tted to the Department by a person or his or her 
representative during antidumping ("AD'') and countervailing duty ("CVD'') proceedings.  The 
amendments are intended to strengthen the current certification requirements.  For example, these amendments revise the certification in order to iden tify to which document the certification applies, to 
identify to which segment of an  AD/CVD proceeding the certificati on applies, to identify who is 
making the certification, and to indicate the date on  which the certification was made.  In addition, the 
amendments are intended to ensure that parties and their counsel are aware of potential consequences 
for false certifications.  The Department is also  requesting comments on this interim final rule. 
 DATES:   The effective date of this interim final rule  is March 14, 2011.  This interim final rule will 
apply to all investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after March 14, 2011, and other 
segments of AD/CVD proceedings initiated on or after March 14, 2011. 
 
Request for Public Comment:  The Department seeks public comment on this interim final rule.  To 
be assured of consideration, comments must  be received no later than May 11, 2011 and 
rebuttal comments must be received no later than June 27, 2011.  All comments should refer to 
RIN 0625-AA66.  The Department intends to issue a final rule no later than nine months after the 
publication of this interim final rule. 
 ADDRESSES:  All comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov , Docket No. ITA-2010-0007, unless the commenter does not have access 
to the internet.  Commenters that do not have access to the internet may submit the original and  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 43 
 
 
  two copies of each set of comments by mail or hand delivery/courier.  All comments should be 
addressed to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1870, Department of Co mmerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. 
 
The Department will consider all comments receiv ed before the close of the comment period.  
The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the material be 
treated confidentially because of its business propri etary nature or for any other reason.  All 
comments responding to this notice will be a matt er of public record and will be available for 
inspection at Import Administration's Central R ecords Unit (Room 7046 of the Herbert C. Hoover 
Building) and on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.Regulations.gov . and the Department's Web 
site at http://www.trade.gov/ia/ . 
 
 Any questions concerning file formatting, doc ument conversion, access on the Internet, or 
other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration 
Webmaster, at (202) 482-0866, e-mail address: webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov . 
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:   William Isasi, Senior Attorney, Office of the 
General Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, or Myrna Lobo, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 6, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-4339 or 202-482- 2371, respectively. 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  
 Background 
 
Section 782(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as ame nded, ("the Act'') requires that any person 
providing information to the Department during an  AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy 
and completeness of such information. 19 U.S.C. 1677m(b). Department regulations set forth the 
specific content requirements for such certifications. 19 CFR 351.303(g). The current language of the certification requirements does not address certain important issues. For example, the current 
language does not require the certifying official to  specify the document or the proceeding for which 
the certification is submitted, or even the date on which the certification is signed. 
 
Therefore, on January 26, 2004, the Department published a notice of inquiry in the Federal 
Register, and inquired as to whether the current certif ication requirements are sufficient to protect the 
integrity of Import Administration's ("IA'') admini strative processes and, if not, whether the current 
certification statements should be amended or stre ngthened and, if so, how.  See Certification and 
Submission of False Statements to Import Admi nistration During Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Proceedings-Notice of Inquiry, 69 FR 3562 (January 26, 2004) ("Notice of Inquiry'').  
Based on the comments received in response to the Notice of Inquiry, the Department 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Re quest for Comments in the Federal Register, 
proposing to amend the current regulation, which governs the certification of factual information 
submitted to the Department.  See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration 
During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Pro ceedings-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
Request for Comment, 69 FR 56738 (September 22, 2004) ("Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'').  The 
Department proposed specific boilerplate language for the certifications and requested comments on 
the proposed amendment.  
The Department received 16 submissions in r esponse to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
through December 7, 2004.  The submissions includ ed a wide variety of positions.  Some commenters G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 44 
 
 
  were opposed to the amendments, others supporte d the amendments, and ma ny provided general 
recommendations for amending the certification requirements, as well as comments suggesting 
specific changes in the text of the certifications . In addressing these comments, the Department notes 
that at least one commenter has requested a hearing.  The Admi nistrative Procedure Act does not 
require the Department to hold a hearing. 5 U.S. C. 553.  Given the numerous detailed submissions 
received from a variety of parties, the Department  finds a hearing unnecessary.  After evaluating the 
comments, the Department decided that additional consultation with the Office of Inspector General 
and the Department of Justice was necessary in order to ensure that all concerns could be adequately 
addressed.  Furthermore, because it has been several  years since we last received comments on the 
proposed changes to the certification requirements, we  have decided, as set forth above, to implement 
these changes through an interim final rule, thereby affording parties an additional opportunity to 
comment on these regulations.  
Analysis of Comments 
 
General Comments on Proposed Changes To the Certification  1. The Department's Authority To Change the Certification  
Multiple commenters questioned whether the De partment has authority to change the 
certification. In particular, one commenter argued that section 782(b) of the Act explicitly provides 
the nature of the certification to be rendered, namely , the certification is to be provided by the "person 
providing factual information,'' and the person must certify "to the best of that person's knowledge.''  
This commenter concluded that in changing the certification requirements the Department may be 
expanding the certification obligation beyond that  established by Congress and, thus, acting 
inconsistently with the law. 
 
Response:  The amendments to th e certification that the Department has adopted in this notice 
do not expand the legal obligations set out in the Act.  Rather, these amendments serve to identify 
more specifically the document to which a certifica tion applies and to note the penalty that already 
exists in the law for providing false statements to the Government, including false certifications.  In 
this regard, the Department has updated the language  in the certification to more closely track the 
language found in Section 782(b) of the Act.  2. Equal Application to All Parties  
One commenter argued that any new certifica tion requirements should apply equally to 
petitioners and respondents.  
Response:  All parties submitting factual informa tion to the Department must comply with the 
certification requirements includi ng respondents and petitioners. 
 
3. Date of Signature on the Certification 
 
The Department proposed to require new certifi cations to include the specific date on which 
the submitted information is certified.  Most commenters did not oppose this proposal. Other 
commenters argued that the requirement was unnecessary, but did not oppose it. Some commenters 
opposed the date requirement for company/governme nt certifications, noting that certifications are 
sometimes signed a few days before the date of the submission itself, and argued that this could cause confusion with respect to what date to use on th e certification.  Further, they argued that this 
requirement could be burdensome to companies th at are making multiple filings simultaneously.   G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 45 
 
 
  These commenters, however, did not oppose the date re quirement for the representative certification, 
but recommended requiring the date to be noted only once in the certification.  
Response:  Because there were no substantive obj ections to including the signature date on 
the certification, the Department will require it on the certification.  The Department does not agree 
with the logistical concerns raised (e.g., confusi on arising from certificati ons being signed and dated 
prior to filing date).  Certifications should be dated the day they are signed and, assuming a 
submission is completed prior to filing date, certif ications may be signed and dated prior to filing 
date.  Finally, the Department agrees that certifi cations only need to be dated once on the date of 
signature, and we have altered the certifications accordingly. 
 4. Identification of the Particular Subm ission to which the Certification Applies 
 
The Department proposed that certifications shoul d identify the specific material to which the 
person is certifying.  Most commenters did not op pose this proposed change.  For example, one 
commenter supported the proposed change because, in their experience, a certifying official 
sometimes signed "blank checks'' for multiple future s ubmissions that the official may not read.  This 
commenter argued that identifying the actual submission would prevent this practice.  Commenters who opposed this requirement argued that this re quirement was redundant because certifications apply 
to the submissions to which they are attached. 
 
 Response:  Because there were no substantiv e objections to identifying the submission to 
which the certification pertains, the Department has d ecided to adopt this change to the certification. 
This revision is intended to ensure that the signer is  aware of the exact submission to which he or she 
is certifying and for which he or she is responsible. In addition, this provision will help to prevent the 
use of a generic "blank check'' certification that coul d simply be copied and attached to a submission 
irrespective of whether the signer had reviewed the submission.  Further, identifying the submission 
to which a certification applies would assist in linki ng the certification to its submission in the event 
that the certification became detached.  5. Level of Accuracy and Completeness  Contemplated by the Certification 
 
One commenter argued that the Department must ensure that the new certification includes 
definitions that are sufficiently broad to cover all violations that may have a material effect on the 
outcome under the specific facts and circumstances of the segment \1\ of the AD/CVD proceeding in 
which the certification is submitted.  This comme nter argued that the definition should not only 
include the knowing submission of false information,  but also the failure to take reasonable care in 
assuring the completeness and accuracy of inform ation.  Multiple commenters argued that the 
Department should only impose well-defined standa rds on parties; otherwise the certification 
requirements would impose unfairly vague legal sta ndards.  In addition, and as noted infra at 
Comment 17, many parties submitted comments on defi ning the level of inquiry a representative must 
undertake to determine whether a submission is  accurate and complete before certifying the 
submission. 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  \1\ An AD/CVD proceeding consists of one or more segments.  For example, an AD or CVD 
investigation, an administrative review of the resulting AD/CVD order, and a scope inquiry under the 
AD/CVD order each would constitute a segment of  the proceeding. See 19 CFR 351.102 ("Segment 
of proceeding'').  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 46 
 
 
  Response:  The Department has not adopted the commenters' proposal .  We disagree that 
additional definitions regarding the level of accu racy and completeness are needed.  The correct 
standard to which parties are held is the standard pr ovided in the Act. See section 782(b) of the Act.  
Furthermore, we believe the certification language  is sufficiently precise to accomplish the purpose 
intended and, thus, there is no need to incl ude additional definitions. See 19 CFR 351.304(g). 
 6. Specification of Enforcement Procedures  
In the proposed revisions to the certification re gulation, the Department did not specify the 
enforcement procedures that would be available.  Some commenters argued that in order for the 
certifications to be effective, the Department mu st establish specific enforcement procedures.  For 
example, one commenter argued that the Department  should specify its procedures for conferring with 
the Inspector General's Office and law enforcement agen cies, such as the Department of Justice.  This 
commenter also argued that the Department should formulate guidelines that permit the Department to 
maintain records to be used in any investigati on of misconduct rather than allowing a company to 
terminate participation and withdr aw its submissions.  Further, this commenter argued that the 
Department should draft regulations for investigati on of inaccurate or incomplete factual information 
that mirror those outlined in the Department's regul ations for violations of administrative protective 
orders.  
Response:  The Department has not adopt ed the commenters' proposal to establish 
enforcement procedures.  As explained supra at Comment 1, the amended certifications serve to 
clarify and strengthen already existing obligations regarding the submission of information to the 
Department.  The inclusion of a warning pursuant to  18 U.S.C. 1001 in the revised certification makes 
plain the consequences of a false certification.  These consequences were implicit under the previous 
certification requirement.  The inclusion of this wa rning does not indicate that the Department thinks 
it is necessary to establish comprehensive enforcemen t procedures for certification violations.  Rather, 
certification violations would continue to be re ferred to the appropriate offices better equipped to 
handle such matters, such as the Department's Offi ce of the Inspector General.  These offices would 
employ their normal procedures for handling possible violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001.  Additionally, we 
note that unlike our statutory authority to promulgate Administrative Protective Orders which 
includes an enforcement authority (see 19 U.S.C. 1677 f(c)), there is no specific statutory authority for 
the Import Administration, itself, to investigate and impose sanctions with respect to certification 
violations, except through those available more broadl y to the Inspector General's Office. See also 19 
CFR part 354.  
With regard to concerns that parties may withdraw information from the record of the 
AD/CVD proceeding, the Department notes, as an in itial matter, that it does not permit parties to 
withdraw public submissions from the record of AD/CVD proceedings.  While  the Department does 
permit parties to withdraw business proprietary s ubmissions from the record of AD/CVD proceedings, 
the Department intends, where necessary, to preser ve business proprietary submissions in order to 
determine whether a false certification has been filed.  The Department may preserve these 
submissions pursuant to its general authority to protect its administra tive process.  Thus, while a party 
may terminate participation in an AD/CVD pr oceeding and withdraw its business proprietary 
submissions, such a withdrawal of submissions w ould only apply to the AD/ CVD proceeding, and not 
the Department's investigation of a false certification.  The Depart ment has updated the certification 
language in order to ensure that parties are aware that the Department may preserve business 
proprietary submissions to investigate false certific ations even if a party withdraws its submissions 
from an AD/CVD proceeding.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 47 
 
 
  7. Specification of Sanctions 
 
The Department proposed including in the certifi cation a reference to criminal sanctions that 
exist under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for those individuals  who knowingly make misstatements to the 
U.S. Government.  One commenter supported this proposal, arguing that reference to 18 U.S.C. 
1001 underscored the seriousness of falsely certif ying a factual submission.  Multiple commenters 
argued that the Department must establish additional specific sanctions in order for the certifications to be effective.  For example, one commenter argue d that sanctions should include referring the matter 
for criminal prosecution, subjecting companies to  full scale audits, barring company officials from 
future certifications, imposing adverse facts av ailable, and barring representatives from practicing 
before the Department.  
Another commenter generally agreed with the pr oposal but noted that th e language referenced 
18 U.S.C. 1001, but not the rules of professional conduct.  This commenter suggested that it would 
also be useful to indicate that false statements w ould be referred to the a ppropriate bar association. 
One commenter opposed the proposal, arguing that by characterizing 18 U.S.C. 1001 as applying to knowingly made misstatements, the Department's pr oposal over-reaches because the statute deals only 
with "material'' matters.  Further, subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. 1001 excludes from the scope of 
subsection (a) representations made in the context of a judicial proceeding.  According to this 
commenter, this exclusion was created to avoid chill ing advocacy in judicial fora and because there 
were already statutes addressing and punishing those who willfully mislead the judicial branch.  The 
commenter concluded that these exemptions were equally applicable to proceedings before the 
Department.  
This commenter also argued that, under the WTO Agreements, the United States had agreed 
on the consequences to interested parties who fail to  cooperate with investigating authorities, i.e., 
Article 6.8 of the Agreement on Implementation of  Article VI of the GATT 1994 (the Antidumping 
Agreement)--adverse facts available.  Thus, this commenter concluded that application of 18 U.S.C. 
1001 is a remedy beyond that which the WTO Agreem ents permit.  Another commenter argued that 
the reminder in the certification did not accurately reflect 18 U.S.C. 1001.  This commenter noted that the law provides criminal sanctions for "false, fi ctitious, or fraudulent statements'' rather than 
"misstatements'' as noted in the proposed certifi cation.  Another commenter argued that, given the 
sanctions available in the AD/CV D proceeding and the code of professional conduct governing legal 
counsel, it was doubtful whether any legitimate pur pose could be served by recourse to criminal 
sanctions.  This commenter was concerned that such sanctions could deter parties from submitting 
information, the accuracy of which cannot be absolutely certified (e.g., information from sub-
contractors). 
 
Response:  The Department has made chang es to its proposed certification based on these 
comments.  First, the Department agrees with t hose commenters that argued that the text of the 
certification should follow more precisely the statutory language found in 18 U.S.C. 1001, and we have updated the text of the certification accordingly.   Additionally, we have added a reference to 
18 U.S.C. 1001 which reminds parties that serious c onsequences exist for false certifications, thereby 
strengthening the certification process.  The Depa rtment disagrees, however, with those commenters 
that argue the Department should adopt specific sanctions.  The Department does not have the 
authority or resources to create independent sanctio ns for false certifications.  Sanctions for false 
certifications will be determined by the offices to  which the Department refers alleged certification 
violations under 18 U.S.C. 1001 (e.g., the Department's  Office of the Inspector General).  However, if 
a party is found to have violated 18 U.S.C. 1001, the Department reserves the right to protect its 
administrative process through appropriate steps.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 48 
 
 
  The Department also disagrees that the judicial exception found in 18 U.S.C. 1001(b) is 
applicable to AD/CVD proceedings before the Depart ment.  The terms of this exception apply only to 
judicial proceedings, and not Execu tive Branch agency proceedings. 
 
The Department disagrees with the arguments  related to the WTO Agreements, including 
Article 6.8 of the Antidumping Agreement.  Includin g a reference in the certifications to the U.S. 
Government's standard admonition regarding false statements in no way contravenes the 
United States' obligations under the WTO Agreements .  This is a common reference included in many 
Government agencies' forms.  This referen ce promotes the integrity of the Government's 
administrative processes.  The Department also disagrees that Article 6.8 of the Antidumping 
Agreement limits the Government's ability to prot ect the integrity of its administrative process. 
 
With regard to referring matters to state bar as sociations, it is not the Department's general 
practice to become involved in proceedings before state bar associations regarding allegations of 
attorney misconduct.  Such efforts could result in excessive expenditures of time and personnel.  
Notwithstanding the Department's ge neral practice, the Department re serves the right to refer matters 
to state bar associations when the Department determines that the circumstances warrant such a 
referral.  
With regard to arguments that the Departme nt should impose adverse facts available under 
Section 776 of the Act for false certifications, th e Department notes that filing a false certification 
could result in the application of adverse facts available for a respondent. 19 U.S.C. 1677e.  For 
example, false certifications could result in unve rifiable information and could signify that a 
respondent had failed to cooperate to the best of its ability within the meaning of Section 776 of the 
Act.  In such instances where the criteria in S ection 776 of the Act are met, the Department could 
apply adverse facts availabl e in its determination. 
 
With regard to arguments pertaining to the submission of third party information (e.g., 
information from sub-contractors), the culpabilit y standards established in 18 U.S.C. 1001 that 
require, for example, actions made knowingly a nd willfully, provide re levant protections.  
Furthermore, the Department notes that this stan dard has been successfully applied to parties 
submitting information to the Government in a wide  variety of circumstances and the Department 
expects that this standard is equally  workable in an AD/CVD proceeding. 
 
Comments on Proposed Changes to th e Company/Government Certification 
 8. Requirement for Companies To Keep Signed Orig inal Certifications in its "Official Records'' 
 
The Department proposed including an obligatio n for certifying company officials to maintain 
the original certification in their company's official  records.  Many commenters did not oppose this 
suggestion.  One commenter argued that using the phrase "official records'' unduly complicates the matter, while another commenter stated that this  requirement had no practical utility and does not 
improve the accuracy or completeness of a factual submission.  Additionally,  this latter commenter 
stated the term "official records'' was undefined and unclear.  Moreover, this commenter argued that it 
was unclear how long a company must maintain the original in its records.  Another commenter 
argued that companies may prefer legal counsel to ma intain the original copy of the certifications, in 
which case providing the Department with original documents could violate a ttorney-client privilege. 
 
Response:  Some commenters argued that requiring  original certifications to be filed with 
submissions is unduly burdensome.  See Comment 14 infra  (describing this argument in more detail).  
The Department finds that requiring the originals to be available for inspection strikes a reasonable 
balance between the need fo r the Department to be able to veri fy the original certifications without  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 49 
 
 
  placing a burden on parties to file original certifica tions with each submission.  This is no different 
than the requirement that respondent compan ies and governments retain original source 
documentation for Department officials to exam ine during the course of on-site verifications. 
 
However, in order to avoid any confusion rega rding both the definition of "official business 
records'' and the time period for which parties are responsible for maintaining originals, we have 
revised the certification to state:  "* * * I will re tain the original for a five-year period commencing 
with the filing of this document.  The original will be available for inspection by U.S. Department of 
Commerce officials.''  Thus, parties are required to  maintain the original certifications in a manner 
that allows the Department to review them duri ng any verification pursuant to 782(i) of the Act. 19 
U.S.C. 1677m(i).  Alternatively, the Department c ould require parties, on a case-by-case basis, to send 
the original to the Department after the submission has been filed.  In addition, parties need to retain 
the originals for a five-year period commencing with th e filing of the document.  This five-year period 
is consistent with the statute of limitations for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001. See 18 U.S.C. 3282. 
 
With regard to the commenter's concern about po ssible violations of attorney-client privilege, 
the Department is specifically requesting that companies and governments, and not legal counsel, 
maintain the company's or government's origin al certifications.  Thus, maintenance of the 
certifications should not implicate attorney-client privilege.  
9. Requirement To List Person(s) Officially  Responsible for Presentation of the Factual 
Information  
The Department proposed that the person(s) o fficially responsible for the presentation of 
factual information certify that he or she "had sole  or substantial responsibility for preparation (or the 
supervision of the preparation) of the submissi on and have a reasonable basis to formulate an 
informed judgment as to the accuracy and comple teness of the information contained in the 
submission.''  One commenter argued that th is proposal was necessary because the current 
certification provides no assurance that the certi fying official has any real knowledge of the 
underlying facts to which they are certifying. Many commenters did not object to this proposal.  Some 
commenters argued that the term ``substantial re sponsibility,'' "reasonable basis'' and "informed 
judgment'' were sufficiently vague to subject parties to uncertain legal standards.  In addition, one 
commenter argued that submissions in AD/CVD cases can involve many thousa nds of pages of data, 
obtained from many sources, including related companies.   As a result, it is unrealistic to expect one 
person to ensure total accuracy.  Another comment er argued that this proposal raised problems 
because it assumes a strict supervisory hierarchy in  companies (or governments) when often such a 
hierarchy is not clearly discernable.  In such in stances, it would be difficult for any person to provide 
a certification with regard to supervision of othe rs significantly involved in the preparation of a 
submission.  
Response:  The Department is obligated to  calculate AD/CVD margins as accurately as 
possible. Rhone Poulenc, lnc. v. United States, 899 F. 2d 1185, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 1990).  To accomplish 
this task, the Department must be presented with accurate and complete info rmation and, thus must 
hold parties responsible for submitting accurate and comp lete information.  In this regard, it would be 
ineffective for the Department to have numerous i ndividuals held accountable for certain portions of a 
submission. See also Comment 10 infra.  In such circumstances, it could be very difficult for the 
Department to hold a person(s) responsible for his or her certification because that person could argue 
that any inaccuracies or incompleteness were attrib utable to another person responsible for another 
portion of the submission.  In addition, it is importa nt that the information, as a whole, be evaluated 
for accuracy and completeness.  Permitting piecemeal certifications would allow parties to present information to the Department without ever engaging in this overall evaluation.  Rather, in order for a 
certification to be effective, there must be an indivi dual (or a very limited number of individuals) \2\ G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 50 
 
 
  to hold accountable for the accuracy and comple teness of the entire submission based on that 
person(s)'s knowledge of the entire submission.  Th e person(s) that the submitting party has identified 
as accountable for the accuracy and completeness of the entire submission should complete the 
certification. 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  \2\ While it is optimal to have only one person sign the certification, the Department recognizes 
that sometimes this could be impossible because of the size or organization of a company or 
government. For instance, if different subsidiari es from a multinational company were presenting 
information to the Department in one submission, there may be more than one person officially 
responsible for presenting the information.  The Depa rtment expects that this situation would be the 
exception rather than the rule.  Under such circumst ances, the Department expects the persons to work 
together to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the entire submission, rather than only certifying 
to a portion of the submission. 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
The Department disagrees with the argument th at is premised on a lack of hierarchies in 
companies or governments.  It has not been th e Department's experience that companies and 
governments are unable to identify a responsible person( s) to complete certifications due to a lack of 
hierarchy in their organizational structures.  In order to function, companies and governments must 
both establish clear chains of authority.  The De partment expects that companies and governments 
will consider these chains of authority when identif ying the party(s) responsible for the submission of 
factual information.  Accordingly, the Depart ment has not made any changes to the proposed 
certification based on these comments. 
 10. Requirement To List on Certifications Othe r Individuals With Significant Responsibility for 
Preparation of Part or All of the Submission  
The Department proposed including within the cer tification a list of all individuals with 
significant responsibility for part or all of the su bmission.  Several comments were received in 
response to this proposal.  Some commenters stated  that it raised issues of confidentiality/business 
proprietary information to include such a list. Ma ny commenters argued that there would be varying 
opinions as to what "significant responsibility'' mean s, while others said it would be burdensome to 
identify all such persons in cases of large companies that sometimes rely on hundreds of staff 
members for the preparation of questionnaire responses.   In this regard, one commenter argued that in 
CVD investigations, the proposed certification would be quite onerous because of the multiple levels 
of government and many responding departments a nd agencies.  One commenter noted that this 
requirement would add a burden without appearing to  add anything of substance to the certification 
process because under the current certification an offici al must already attest to the accuracy of the 
submission.  Another commenter argued that the lis t would rapidly become outdated as personnel left 
the company.  One commenter inquired if the re quirement would include company officials who 
prepared financial statements.  
Response:  Based on the concerns raised by these commenters, the Department has decided 
not to adopt the requirement to list in the certifi cation other individuals with significant responsibility 
for preparing the submission.  The Department agrees  that referring to numerous other individuals in 
the certification may create ambiguity with respect to the primary responsibility of the person(s) 
officially responsible for the presentation of th e factual information to certify the accuracy and 
completeness of the entire submission. See Comment 9 supra.  Additionally, th is would require us to 
define what constitutes "significant responsibility'' an d what constitutes "part * * * of a submission,''  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 51 
 
 
  e.g., one piece of information, two pieces of data, etc.  Also, this requirement could easily become 
overly burdensome.  In order for this proposal to ha ve value, each person responsible for a significant 
portion of a submission would have to sign the certi fication and identify the particular portion of the 
submission for which he or she was responsible.  When a submission contains a great deal of 
information, assigning each portion of a submission to persons and collecting the corresponding 
signatures could prove complicated and time cons uming.  For these reasons, the Department has 
deleted this proposed requirement.  11. Application of Certification to Affiliated Party Submissions 
 
One commenter argued that the proposed changes do not address whether certification 
requirements apply to submissions contai ning information from affiliated parties. 
 
Response:  The amended regulation does not cha nge the current requirement with regard to 
submissions containing information from affiliated parties.  That is, information presented to the 
Department, including information a party acquir es from an affiliate, must include a factual 
certification.  \3\ If one person is unable to certify to the accuracy and completeness of a submission, 
this regulation allows for multiple parties to sign the certification.  However, as discussed above, the 
Department expects such circumstances to be th e exception rather than the rule.  See Comment 9 
supra. 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  \3\ See Comment 16 infra (discussing the narrow ex ception to the certification requirement when 
certain information is moved from one segment of a proceeding to another). 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  12. Whether the Certification Is Deemed To Be "Continuing in Effect''  
The Department proposed requiring the signer to certify that he or she is aware that the 
certification is deemed to be continuing in effect, such that the signer must notify the Department in 
writing, if at any point during the segment of th e proceeding, he or she possessed knowledge or had 
reason to know of any material misrepresentation or  omission of fact in the submission or in any 
previously certified information upon which the su bmission relied. One commenter argued that this 
proposal strengthened the certification requirement s.  Another commenter supported the proposal 
generally because it would help the Department obtain the most complete and accurate record 
feasible.  However, this commenter was concerned th at a party might use this continuing obligation to 
submit corrections beyond the normal deadlines enumer ated by the Department.  In addition, this 
commenter stated that, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c), the Department should allow other 
interested parties an opportunity to comment wh en a party notifies the De partment of material 
misrepresentations or omissions of facts. 
 
Other commenters raised concerns that the propo sal was vague in so far as:  It was unclear 
how quickly the certifying official must notify the De partment of the misrepresentation or omission of 
fact;  it was unclear how the Depa rtment would determine that par ties had failed to meet their ongoing 
obligation, including whether the Department would c onduct such a determination at verification;  it 
was unclear what burden of proof the Department w ould apply in order to determine whether a party 
had complied with this continuing obligation;  it was unclear whether this continuing obligation 
continued even when the company was no longer pa rticipating in the AD/CVD proceeding or when 
the employee was no longer working at the company.  In addition, one commenter expressed concern 
that the Department's inquiries on whether the e rrors constituted "materia l misrepresentation or G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 52 
 
 
  omission of fact'' could be burdensome and incommens urate with the errors or omissions because, in 
the vast majority of instances, the errors or om issions are inadvertent.  Another commenter argued 
that this obligation could impose an individual duty  on employees to report errors or omissions in 
violation of contractual, ethical or legal obligations. 
 
Response:  The Department has decided th at adding the proposed language does not 
strengthen the certification requirement because the ob ligation to report material misrepresentations or 
omissions of fact already exists.  First, this re quirement is implicit in the certification requirement 
found in Section 782(b) of the Act.  Additionally,  this requirement is implicit in the verification 
requirements found in Section 782(i) of the Act. 19  U.S.C. 1677m(i);  see al so 19 CFR 351.307(b).  
Generally speaking, in order for the Department to use information in an AD/CVD proceeding, it 
needs to be verifiable, and information that contai ns a material misrepresentation or omission would 
not be verifiable.  Therefore, the proposed langua ge is not adopted in this interim final rule. 
 
13. Applicability to Governments 
 
One commenter requested clarification of whethe r this proposed regulation applies to foreign 
governments.  This commenter argued that there is an inconsistency between the text of the 
regulation, which refers to a requirement that certificat ions need to be filed by the "person(s) officially 
responsible for presentation of factual information,''  and the text of the certification itself, which 
covers a "company certification'' to be filed by someone "employed by (COMPANY NAME),'' and 
does not cover submissions by foreign governments.  Another commenter argued that changes to the 
current certification requirements with regard  to governments were unnecessary because government 
officials are presumed to provide accurate information.  
Response:  The Act does not provide an ex ception from the certification requirement for 
information presented by governments.  Thus, for example, in CVD proceedings where a government 
is an interested party and presents information to the Department, the certification requirement 
applies.  The text of the company/government ce rtification has been amended to include the term 
"GOVERNMENT'' which clarifies that it is applicab le to both companies and governments.  That is, 
the title of the company/government certification now reads "COMPANY/GOVERNMENT 
CERTIFICATION'';  the first sentence of this certification now includes "employed by COMPANY 
NAME or GOVERNMENT'';  and the first sentence of the counsel/representative certification now includes "counsel or representative to COMPANY OR GOVERNMENT OR PARTY.''  
Comments on Proposed Changes to  the Representative Certification 
 
14. Requirement for Representatives To Submit Signed Original Certifications to the Department 
 
The Department proposed that legal or other representatives must file original certifications 
with the Department and must maintain a copy of the certification in their records during the 
pendency of the AD/CVD proceeding.  One commenter  argued that there are circumstances in which 
submitting an original certification would be impractical.  For example, when the filing attorney is not 
in Washington on the filing date, that attorney ma y need to fax or send a PDF copy of the submission 
to Washington for filing.  
Response:  Based on these comments as well as those described supra at Comment 8, the 
Department has decided that requiring an original  to be filed may be overly burdensome.  Common 
technology (e.g., fax machines and email) allows the certifying representative to review documents, 
even on filing day, without being physically located  in Washington.  Under such circumstances, it 
may be impossible to file an original certifica tion with the Department.  Consistent with the 
requirements for company/government certifications , the Department is requiring representatives to  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 53 
 
 
  maintain original certifications for a five-year pe riod commencing with the filing of the document to 
which the certification applies.  15. Requirement To List on the Certification Lega l Counsel or Representative that Supervised the 
Advising, Preparing, or Review of the Subm ission or Other Individuals With Significant 
Responsibility for Advising, Preparing, or Reviewing the Submission  
The Department proposed that the representative certification include a provision for when 
the representative "supervised the advising, preparing or reviewing part or all of the submission.''  
There were no specific comments received on this portion of our proposed amendment. 
 
Additionally, the Department proposed including  in the representative certification a list of 
other individuals with significant responsibility for advi sing, preparing or reviewing part or all of the 
submission.  Many commenters opposed this proposal .  One commenter noted that this requirement 
would interfere with the attorney-work product priv ilege and argued that the Department and other 
parties are not entitled to know how a law firm assi gns its attorneys and staff to a case, nor which 
attorneys are providing advice to a client on specific aspects of the submission.  This commenter concluded that this proposal would not add to th e accuracy and completeness of factual submissions 
because under the applicable laws and rules of profes sional responsibility, the supervising attorney is 
legally responsible for the work of subordinate a ttorneys and legal staff.  Similar to the comments 
pertaining to the proposal to include a list of ot her individuals with significant responsibility in 
company/government certifications, multiple commenters argued that without a definition of "significant responsibility,'' the proposal was too va gue.  See Comment 10 supra.  Another commenter 
argued that this requirement went far beyond th e reasonable goals of traceability and accountability 
because it would impose a significant burden on top of the already tight deadlines.  Moreover, it did 
not provide additional insurance of accuracy and truthfulness. 
  Response:  The Department has decided not to require representatives to list multiple parties 
on the certification. As discussed above, in order fo r a representative certification to be effective, 
there must be an individual (or very limited numbe r of individuals) \4\ responsible for the accuracy 
and completeness of the entire submission base d on that person(s)'s knowledge of the entire 
submission. See Comment 9 and Comment 10 supra. 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  \4\ While it is optimal to have only one represen tative sign the certification, the Department 
recognizes that sometimes this could be impossible because there may be more than one 
representative officially responsible for a submission.   For instance, multiple law firms could submit a 
document together.  The Department expects that this  situation would be the exception rather than the 
rule.  Under such circumstances, the Department expects the representatives to work together to 
ensure the accuracy and completeness of the entire submission, rather than only certifying to a portion 
of the submission. 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  16. Whether Representative Certifica tion Is "Continuing in Effect'' 
 
The Department proposed requiring the representa tive to certify that he or she is aware that 
the certification is deemed to be continuing in eff ect, such that the signer must notify the Department 
in writing, if at any point during the segment of th e proceeding, he or she possessed knowledge or had 
reason to know of any material misrepresentation or  omission of fact in the submission or in any 
previously certified information upon which the s ubmission relied.  The majority of commenters G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 54 
 
 
  opposed this proposal.  Some commenters were c oncerned that this continuing obligation could 
conflict with the attorney's rules of professiona l conduct, which may include a responsibility to 
maintain attorney-client confidences (e.g., DC  Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6).  These 
commenters noted that the correct  response under this rule, if a client is unwilling to rectify a 
falsehood, is for counsel to withdraw representation,  not for the counsel to disclose the falsehood to 
the Department.  This same commenter noted that in  many jurisdictions there are rules of professional 
conduct that prohibit attorneys from knowingly making fa lse statements or assisting their clients in 
fraudulent conduct (e.g., DC Rules of Prof'l Conduct 3.3, 4.1, and 8.4).  Another commenter noted that often information is moved from one segment of proceeding to another.  As such, this commenter 
concluded that, if the certification was going to include a continuing obligation, it should not be 
limited in duration to one segment of a proceedi ng.  Other commenters noted that increases in the 
certification requirements for counsel would increase the cost of parties participating in trade remedy proceedings and severely limit the ability of lawyers to represent parties in such proceedings.  This 
commenter also argued that the Department didn't ha ve statutory authority to regulate the professional 
conduct of attorneys or other representatives. 
 
Response:  The Department has decided not  to add the proposed language to the 
representative certification.  As discussed above , adding this language does not strengthen the 
certification requirement because the obligation to re port material misrepresentations or omissions of 
fact already exists. See Comment 12 supra.  The Depart ment notes that this obligation is to be read in 
conjunction with a representative's professional respons ibilities.  See, e.g., D.C. Code of Prof'l 
Conduct, R. 4.1 (prohibiting an attorney from making false statements to a third person in the course 
of representing a client);  D.C. Code of Prof'l C onduct, R. 3.3 (prohibiting an attorney from offering 
evidence that the attorney knows is false).  The requirement to disclose material misrepresentations or 
omissions should be interpreted in a manner c onsistent with a representative's professional 
responsibilities. 
 
With regard to information moved from the record  of one segment of a proceeding to another, 
the continuing obligation exists in so far as a representative is moving his or her own client's 
information or otherwise knows that the informa tion contains material misrepresentations or 
omissions.  For example, if counsel for a foreign pr oducer is moving his or her client's questionnaire 
response from a prior segment to the record of  an ongoing segment, counsel must include a 
certification with this questionnaire response.  If, however, counsel is placing another party's 
information on the record, no certification is requi red.  Notwithstanding this exception, if counsel 
otherwise has a basis to know that the information he or she is moving to the ongoing segment contains material misrepresentations or omissions, the continuing obligation to disclose exists.  That 
is, counsel must never knowingly move informa tion containing material misrepresentations or 
omissions onto the record of another segment of the proceeding without disclosing these misrepresentations or omissions to the Department.  Moreover, if information from a prior review is 
submitted because it applies to the current segment's entries, it must have a new company/government 
certification stating it is accurate as to the current segment.  
17. Requirement To Make "An Inquiry Reasonable under the Circumstances'' 
 
The Department proposed requiring representativ es to make an inquiry reasonable under the 
circumstances before certifying that the submission is accurate and complete.  A few commenters generally supported this proposal.  For example, one commenter argued that the current certification 
requirement permitted certification even when th e person certifying knew little about the submission. 
 
Many commenters opposed this proposal.  On e commenter argued that the proposal was 
improper because the scope of the reasonable inquiry requirement was vague, particularly in light of 
the fact that the Department also requires a detailed company/government certification.  In this regard,  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 55 
 
 
  some commenters noted that the Department's discussion in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
conflicts with the proposed text of the certification in so far as the former references "due diligence'' 
while the latter references "a reasonable inquiry und er the circumstances.''  Further, a commenter 
argued that it was unclear whether the Department contemplates attorneys "auditing'' their clients' 
submissions, comparing submissions made to di fferent agencies, or merely asking questions 
concerning the sources relied upon to respond to questionnaires.  This commenter also noted that there is no precedent or common understanding regard ing what constitutes ``due diligence'' in the 
context of trade cases.  This commenter argued th at instead of the obligation imposed by this 
proposal, the Department should impose an obligation th at the attorney "did not consciously disregard 
other facts and information indicating that a particular submission included false statements or 
omitted material information.''  With this language, the Department could clarify that it only intends 
attorneys to review the information provided rather than searching out potentially conflicting 
information from other sources.  Another commenter  noted that the representative certification 
contemplates a representative that is fully engaged in all aspects of the proceeding, including the 
submission of factual information.  However, representatives may be hired to simply copy and file 
documents with the Department or to consult on discrete issues.  This commenter concluded that 
under these circumstances it is improper for the De partment to require representatives to file 
certifications.  
Another commenter argued that imposing an affi rmative duty on attorneys to inquire into the 
facts provided by clients in conjunction with  the obligation to notify the Department of 
misstatements--particularly in light of the thr eat of criminal sanctions--could compromise the 
attorney's professional judgment by placing his or he r interests over that of the client.  Another 
commenter noted it was unrealistic for legal represen tatives to perform such a detailed inquiry given 
the tight deadlines for filing responses to the Depart ment's request for information, the client's 
location in a foreign country, and the fact that the s ource data is often in a fo reign language.  Another 
commenter argued that requiring attorneys to conduct such an inquiry would increase costs which, in 
turn, would decrease legal representation, ultimately  resulting in more decisions relying on adverse 
facts available.  
One commenter noted the proposed rule threat ens criminal sanctions, but Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 11 ("Rule 11'') does not. Furthermor e, this commenter noted that, under Rule 11, the 
attorney may withdraw the offending pleading or mo tion without further consequences;  but no such 
safeguard is included in the proposal.  Additionall y, multiple commenters noted in promulgating this 
rule and the corresponding rule of the Court of In ternational Trade, guidance was explicitly provided 
regarding the inquiry that was expected.  These comme nters argued that the Department must provide 
similar guidance. 
 
Another commenter noted that the Act does not impose the obligation contemplated by this 
proposal and, as such, the Department has no author ity to impose an affirmative obligation on counsel 
to review the information the client wishes to submit.   This commenter stated that, nevertheless, if the 
Department retains the "reasonable inquiry'' require ment, it should mirror this requirement after the 
IRS regulation, 31 CFR 10.34(c) which permits a pr actitioner to rely genera lly in good faith on the 
information furnished by a client without verifyi ng that information.  For similar reasons, another 
commenter advocated this same standard.  Lastly, one commenter stated this requirement would give 
the Department too much discretion.  
Response:  The Department has decided not to include this requirement in the representative 
certification.  The proposed language mirrors th e language in Rule 11 of the U.S. Court of 
International Trade.  This is not the correct  standard to place on representatives in AD/CVD 
proceedings before the Department.  Rather, the corr ect standard is that which exists in the Act.  
Specifically, counsel must certify that "the informat ion contained in this submission is accurate and G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 56 
 
 
  complete to the best of my knowledge.''  Section 782(b) of the Act.  In the event of any alleged 
violation of the counsel certification requireme nt, the Department expects that the offices 
investigating the alleged violations (e.g., the Depa rtment's Office of the Inspector General or the 
Department of Justice) will address the meaning of the terms rather than IA. 
 
The Department disagrees with the argument that  a representative need not file a certification 
when that representative simply copies and files docum ents.  In order to appear as a representative of 
an interested party in and AD/CVD proceeding, that  representative must take on the duties incumbent 
on a representative.  One of those duties incl udes a duty to certify all information that the 
representative presents to the Department on behalf of his or her client.  If a party is hired to simply 
copy and file documents for an interested party then  that party should not appear as a representative in 
an AD/CVD proceeding.  
Issuance of Interim Final Rule 
 
After analyzing and carefully considering all of  the comments that the Department received in 
response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and after further review of the provisions of the proposed rule, the Department is hereby publishi ng an interim final regulation pertaining to the 
certifications that must accompany factual submissions in AD/CVD proceedings.  This regulation strengthens the certification requirement by requiri ng parties to identify the submission to which the 
certification applies;  to identify to which seg ment of an AD/CVD proceeding the certification 
applies;  to identify who is making the certification;  to indicate the date on which the certification was 
made;  and to make clear that parties and their re presentatives are subject to serious consequences for 
false certifications.\5\  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 \5\ The Department is developing a procedure for electronic filing in AD/CVD proceedings.  The Department will consider what changes, if any, this  interim final rule will require to meet electronic 
filing procedures. See, e.g., Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:  Electronic Filing Procedures;  Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 75 FR 44163 (July 28, 2010). 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 Regulatory Flexibility Act  
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,  5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Chief Counsel for 
Regulation at the Department of Commerce has ce rtified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small 
Business Administration, that the proposed rule, if promulgated as final, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entiti es.  The factual basis for this certification was 
published with the proposed rule in 2004.  However,  due to the length of time since the publication of 
the proposed rule, the Department now updates the f actual basis.  The amendment would have little or 
no economic impact on the companies/governments or their legal or other representatives since it only 
alters existing requirements.  The amendment would have fe w, if any, new pape rwork burdens since it 
only requires a small amount of additional supp lemental information.  IA possesses limited 
information regarding the number of entities that might be affected by this proposed rulemaking.  In 
the 12 months ending September 2010, IA c onducted 246 antidumping and countervailing duty 
investigations and reviews (excluding sunset revi ews and suspension agreements), including initiation 
of 17 antidumping and countervailing duty investiga tions.  However, IA is unable to estimate the 
number of entities that participated in  each of these investigations a nd reviews, and is therefore unable 
to estimate the number of entities, including those th at would be considered to be small businesses, 
affected by the proposed rulemaking.  In add ition, no comments were received regarding the  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 57 
 
 
  economic impact of this rule.  As a result, the conclusion in the original certification remains 
unchanged and a final regulatory flexibility analysis  is not required and has not been prepared.   
 Paperwork Reduction Act 
 
It has been determined that this proposed  rulemaking is not subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.  In this regard, the Department notes th at earlier versions of this rulemaking stated that 
the Paperwork Reduction Act was applicable.  However, since that time, the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation has de termined that this rulemaking is not subject to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act because certificati ons accompany information submitted during the 
course of AD/CVD proceedings.  See 5 CFR 1320.4( a)(2) (explaining that the Paperwork Reduction 
Act does not apply to administrative action against specific individuals or entities). 
 Executive Order 12866 
 
It has been determined that the proposed rulemaking is not significant for purposes of 
Executive Order 12866.  Executive Order 13132  
It has been determined that the proposed rule making does not contain federalism implications 
warranting the preparation of a federalism assessment.  List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351  
Administrative practice and procedure, An tidumping duties, Business and industry, 
Confidential business information, Countervailing duti es, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.  
Dated:  January 31, 2011. Ronald K. Lorentzen, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. 
 
For the reasons stated above, 19 CFR part 351 is amended 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. Section 351.303(g) is revised as follows:  Sec.  351.303  Filing, format, translation, service, and certification of documents. 
 
* * * * *  
(g) Certifications.  A person must file with each submission containing factual information the certification in paragraph (g)(1) of  this section and, in addition, if the person G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 58 
 
 
  has legal counsel or another representative, th e certification in paragraph (g)(2) of this 
section. 
 (1) For the person(s)\*\ officially responsible  for presentation of the factual information: 
 
COMPANY/GOVERNMENT CERTIFICATION  I, (PRINTED NAME AND TITLE), currently employed by (COMPANY NAME or GOVERNMENT), certify that I prepared or otherwi se supervised the preparation of the attached 
submission of (IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC SUBMISSION BY TITLE AND DATE) pursuant to the 
(INSERT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:  THE (ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING DUTY) INVESTIGATION OF (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER) or THE (DATES OF POR) (ADMINISTRATIVE OR NEW SHIPPER) REVIEW UNDER THE (ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING) DUTY ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY)) (CASE NUMBER) 
or THE SUNSET REVIEW OR CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCE REVIEW OR SCOPE RULING OR 
CIRCUMVENTION INQUIRY OF AD/CVD ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER).  I certify that the information contained in this submission is accurate and 
complete to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that the information contained in this submission 
may be subject to verification or corroboration (as appropriate) by the U.S.  Department of 
Commerce. I am also aware that U.S. law (incl uding, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes 
criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make ma terial false statements to the 
U.S. Government.  In addition, I am aware that, even if this submission may be withdrawn from the 
record of the AD/CVD proceeding, the Departme nt may preserve this submission, including a 
business proprietary submission, for purposes of determining the accuracy of this certification.  I certify that I am filing a copy of this signed certifi cation with this submission to the U.S. Department 
of Commerce and that I will retain the original for a five-year period commencing with the filing of 
this document. The original will be available for inspection by U.S.  Department of Commerce officials.  Signature:------------------------------------------------------------- Date:------------------------------------------------------------------ 
 
\*\ For multiple person certificati ons, all persons should be listed  in the first sentence of the 
certification and all persons should si gn and date the certification. In  addition, singular pronouns and 
possessive adjectives should be changed accordingly, e.g., "I'' should be changed to "we'' and "my 
knowledge'' should be change d to "our knowledge.'' 
 
(2) For the legal counsel or other representative:**  REPRESENTATIVE CERTIFICATION  I, (PRINTED NAME), with (LAW FIRM or OTHER FIRM), counsel or representative to 
(COMPANY OR GOVERNMENT OR PARTY), certify that I have read the attached submission of 
(IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC SUBMISSION BY TITLE AND DATE) pursuant to the (INSERT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:  THE (ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING DUTY) INVESTIGATION OF (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER) or THE (DATES OF POR) (ADMINISTRATIVE OR NEW SHIPPER) REVIEW UNDER THE (ANTIDUMPING OR 
COUNTERVAILING) DUTY ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER) 
or THE SUNSET REVIEW OR CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCE REVIEW OR SCOPE RULING OR CIRCUMVENTION INQUIRY OF AD/CVD ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER).  In my capacity as an adviser, counsel, preparer or reviewer of this submission, I certify that the information contained in this submis sion is accurate and complete to the best of my  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 59 
 
 
  knowledge.  I am aware that U.S. law (including, bu t not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal 
sanctions on individuals who know ingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. 
Government.  In addition, I am aware that, even if  this submission may be withdrawn from the record 
of the AD/CVD proceeding, the Department may preserve this submission, including a business 
proprietary submission, for purposes of determining the accuracy of this certification.  I certify that I 
am filing a copy of this signed certification with th is submission to the U.S. Department of Commerce 
and that I will retain the original for a five-year pe riod commencing with the filing of this document.  
The original will be available for inspection by U.S. Department of Commerce officials. 
 
Signature:------------------------------------------------------------- 
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------  
** For multiple representative certifications, all repr esentatives and their firms should be listed in the 
first sentence of the certification and all representa tives should sign and date the certification.  In 
addition, singular pronouns and possessive adjectives should be changed accordingly, e.g., "I'' should 
be changed to "we'' and "my knowledge'' should be ch anged to "our knowledge.'' 
  [FR Doc. 2011-2761 Filed 2-9-11;  8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P 
 
 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 60 
 
 
  [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2011)] 
[Rules and Regulations] [Pages 54697-54700] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] 
[FR Doc No: 2011-22344] 
 ======================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE  International Trade Administration 
 
19 CFR Part 351 
 
[Docket No. 0612243022-1484-02] RIN 0625-AA66   
Certification of Factual Information To Impo rt Administration During Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:  Supplemental Interim Final Rule  
AGENCY:   Import Administration, International Trad e Administration, Department of Commerce. 
 ACTION:   Supplemental interim final ru le and request for comments. 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  SUMMARY:   The Department of Commerce ("the Department '') is issuing this interim final rule to 
supplement an interim final rule published on Februa ry 10, 2011 (Interim Final Rule), which governs 
the certification of factual information submitted to the Department by a person or his or her 
representative during antidumping (``AD'') and count ervailing duty ("CVD'') proceedings.  This 
supplemental interim final rule concerns the cer tifications required of foreign governments. 
 
By this supplemental interim final rule, fo reign governments will be allowed to submit 
certifications in either the format th at was in use prior to the effective date of the Interim Final Rule or 
in the format provided in the Interim Final Rule.  This supplemental interim fi nal rule will remain in 
effect until such time as a final rule is published.  All other aspects of the Interim Final Rule remain in 
effect and fully apply to all parties and their coun sel.  Companies should continue to use the company 
certification provided for in the Interim Final Ru le.  Representatives of companies or governments 
should continue to use the representative certificati on provided for in the Interim Final Rule.  The 
Department is also requesting comments on the a ppropriateness of requiring foreign governments to 
submit the certification provided for in the Interim Final Rule, as discussed in more detail below.  The 
Department is not soliciting comments with respect to any other issues concerning the Interim Final 
Rule as the deadline for su ch comments has expired. 
 DATES:   Effective date:  The effective date of  this supplemental interim final rule is 
September 2, 2011. 
 
Applicability date:  This supplemental interim fi nal rule will apply to all investigations 
initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or afte r September 2, 2011, and other segments of AD/CVD 
proceedings initiated on or after Se ptember 2, 2011, as well as all o ngoing investigations and ongoing  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 61 
 
 
  segments of proceedings.  Those foreign gove rnments that submitted certifications between 
March 14, 2011, the effective date of the Interi m Final Rule, and September 2, 2011 that did not 
conform with the certification formats required by th e Interim Final Rule will have 30 days to submit 
certifications that conform with the formats provide d for in this supplemental interim final rule. 
 
Request for public comment:  The Departme nt is requesting public comment on this 
supplemental interim final rule.  To be assured of consideration, comments must be received no later 
than October 3, 2011.  The Department is not soliciting rebuttal comments.  All comments should 
refer to RIN 0625-AA66.  The Department intends to  issue a final rule within a year after the 
publication of this supplemental interim final rule. 
 ADDRESSES:  In order to ensure the timely receipt  and consideration of comments, the Department 
requires commenters to make on-line submissions, using the http://www.regulations.gov  Web site, 
unless they do not have access to the Internet.  Comments to this notice should be submitted under 
docket number ITA-2010-0007.  To find this docket, enter the docket number in the "Enter Keyword 
or ID'' window at the http://www.regulations.gov  home page and click "Search.''  The site will provide 
a search-results page listing all documents associated with that docket number.  Find a reference to the 
supplemental interim final rule notice by selec ting "Rule'' under "Document Type'' on the search-
results page, and click on the link entitled "Submit a Comment.''  The http://www.regulations.gov  
Web site provides the option of making submissions by filling in a comments field, or by attaching a 
document. ITA prefers submissions to be provided in an attached document.  (For further information 
on using the http://www.regulations.gov  Web site, please consult the resources provided on the Web 
site by clicking on the "Help'' tab.) 
 
Commenters who do not have access to the Internet may submit the original and two copies 
of each set of comments by mail or hand delivery/courier.  All comments should be addressed to 
Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1870, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.  
The Department will consider all relevant co mments regarding the supplemental interim final 
rule that are received before the close of th e comment period.  The Department will not accept 
comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the material be treated confidentially because 
of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason.  All comments responding to this notice will 
be a matter of public record and will be availa ble for inspection at Import Administration's Central 
Records Unit (Room 7046 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building) or on the Federal eRulemaking Portal ("Portal'') at http://www.regulations.gov . 
 
Any questions concerning file formatting, doc ument conversion, access to the Internet, or 
other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at (202) 482-0866, e-mail address: webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov . 
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rebecca Cantu, Attorney, Office of the General 
Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, or Myrna Lobo, International Trade 
Analyst, Office 6, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-4618 or 202-482-2371, respectively. G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 62 
 
 
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
 Background 
 
In the Interim Final Rule (see Certifi cation of Factual Information to Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervaili ng Duty Proceedings:  Interim Final Rule, 
76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011)) the Department invited comments and rebuttal comments from the public by May 11, 2011 and June 27, 2011, respectiv ely.  Subsequently, the Department reopened the 
period for rebuttal comments until July 14, 2011 becau se interested parties were unable to file their 
rebuttal comments within the establis hed deadline due to technical di fficulties with the Portal.  See 
Interim Final Rule on Certification of Fa ctual Information To Import Administration 
During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceed ings: Reopening of Rebuttal Comment Period, 
76 FR 39770 (July 7, 2011).  
Some of the comments received in response to the Interim Final Rule discussed the 
appropriateness of requiring foreign governments and their officials to submit a certification that one 
commenter claims includes an acknowledgement that  the certifying individual may be subject to 
criminal sanctions under U.S. law (including, but not limited to 18 U.S.C. 1001).  This reference to 
18 U.S.C. 1001 was not contained in the prior version of the certification. Some parties contend that it is inappropriate for the Department to impose a certification requirement that, these parties claim, 
subjects foreign government officials to potenti al liability from which they are immune, absent 
limited exceptions, pursuant to U.S. statutory law (e.g., the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) and 
common law.  
In addition, the new certification requirements in clude language which, certain parties claim, 
imposes additional, enforceable legal obligations on foreign governments.  These parties have 
identified language in the new certifications whic h indicates that the submitter is aware that the 
Department may preserve the submission for purposes of determining the accuracy of a certification, even if a party otherwise withdraws the submi ssion from the record, and also language which 
indicates that the submitter must maintain the origin al of the certification for a five-year period.  
These parties contend that the purported additional legal obligations which this language imposes are 
also contrary to principles of sovereign immunity. 
 
The Department requires additional time to anal yze these comments as they relate specifically 
to the government certifications, to obtain public  views on the comments described above, and to 
address fully the parties' comments.  We are theref ore supplementing the Interim Final Rule to allow 
foreign governments to submit certifications in either the format that was in use prior to the Interim 
Final Rule (which does not include the statutory re ference or language described above) or in the new 
format provided in the Interim Final Rule until su ch time as a final rule is published.  This 
supplemental interim final rule is applicable only to foreign gove rnment certifications (i.e., it is not 
applicable to company certifications or representative certifications).  Issuance of Supplemental Interim Final Rule 
 
In light of the comments received on the Interi m Final Rule regarding the appropriateness of 
requiring foreign governments to provide certificati ons that include the new language provided for in 
the Interim Final Rule, the Department is here by publishing a supplemental interim final rule 
pertaining to the government certifications that  must accompany factual submissions in AD/CVD 
proceedings.  This supplemental interim final rule, like the Interim Final Rule, is part of the ongoing 
rulemaking process whereby the Department is seeking to strengthen the certification requirements for all parties.  This supplem ental interim final rule allows  foreign governments to submit  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 63 
 
 
  certifications in either the format th at was in use prior to the effective date of the Interim Final Rule or 
in the format provided in the Interim Final Rule  until such time as a final rule is published. 
 Classification 
 
This supplemental interim final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of 
Executive Order 12866.  
The Department finds good cause under 5 U.S.C.  553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the 
opportunity for public comment before this regula tion becomes effective.  The purpose of this 
supplemental interim final rule is to permit foreign governments to file certifications in either the 
format that was in use prior to the effective date of  the Interim Final Rule or in the format provided in 
the Interim Final Rule in order for the Departme nt to have sufficient time to analyze fully the 
comments received for the Interim Final Rule.  Any delay could impede the ability of foreign 
governments to participate in ongoing AD and CVD proceedings, including their ability to submit 
information, and as a result, any delay could negativ ely impact the Department's ability to administer 
the AD and CVD law.  Thus, providing prior notice w ould be contrary to the public interest.  For the 
same reasons, it would be contrary to the public interest to allow the public an opportunity to 
comment on this rule before it became effective.  Si nce this is a supplement to the interim final rule, 
the public will have an opportunity to comment on this supplement until the end of the comment 
period.  The Department will consider tho se comments before announcing the final rule. 
 Regulatory Flexibility Act  
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,  5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Chief Counsel for 
Regulation at the Department certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business 
Administration, that the proposed rule would not ha ve a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.  The factual basis for this  certification was published with the Interim Final 
Rule.\1\  The changes made by this rule do not change this conclusion, and a final regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 \1\ Interim Final Rule, 76 FR at 7498-99.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
Paperwork Reduction Act  
It has been determined that this rulemaking is  not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.\2\ 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
\2\ Id. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Executive Order 13132 
 
It has been determined that the rulemaki ng does not contain federalism implications 
warranting the preparation of a federalism assessment.   G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 64 
 
 
  List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351 
 
Administrative practice and procedure, An tidumping duties, Business and industry, 
Confidential business information, Countervailing duti es, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements. 
 
Dated: August 25, 2011. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. 
 
For the reasons stated above, 19 CFR part 351 is amended 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. Section 351.303(g) is revised to read as follows:  Sec.  351.303  Filing, document identification, format, translation, service, and certification of 
documents. 
 
* * * * *  
(g) Certifications.  A person must file with each submission containing factual information the certification in paragraph (g)(1) of  this section and, in addition, if the person 
has legal counsel or another representative, th e certification in paragraph (g)(2) of this 
section. 
 (1) For the person(s) officially responsible for presentation of the factual information: 
 
(i) COMPANY CERTIFICATION * 
 
I, (PRINTED NAME AND TITLE), currently employed by (COMPANY NAME), certify that I prepared or otherwise supervised the preparati on of the attached submission of (IDENTIFY THE 
SPECIFIC SUBMISSION BY TITLE AND DATE) pursuant to the (INSERT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:  THE (ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING DUTY) INVESTIGATION OF (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER) or THE (DATES OF POR) 
(ADMINISTRATIVE OR NEW SHIPPER) REVIEW UNDER THE (ANTIDUMPING OR 
COUNTERVAILING) DUTY ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY)) (CASE NUMBER) or THE SUNSET REVIEW OR CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCE REVIEW OR SCOPE RULING OR CIRCUMVENTION INQUIRY OF AD/CVD ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER).  I certify that the information contained in this submission is accurate and 
complete to the best of my knowledge.  I am aware that the information contained in this submission 
may be subject to verification or corroboration (as ap propriate) by the U.S. Department of Commerce.  
I am also aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal 
sanctions on individuals who know ingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. 
Government.  In addition, I am aware that, even if  this submission may be withdrawn from the record  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9  Page 65 
 
 
  of the AD/CVD proceeding, the Department may preserve this submission, including a business 
proprietary submission, for purposes of determining the accuracy of this certification.  I certify that I am filing a copy of this signed certification with th is submission to the U.S. Department of Commerce 
and that I will retain the original for a five-year pe riod commencing with the filing of this document.  
The original will be available for inspection by U.S. Department of Commerce officials. 
 Signature: _____________  Date: _______________ 
 
* For multiple person certifications, all persons sh ould be listed in the first sentence of the 
certification and all persons should si gn and date the certification. In  addition, singular pronouns and 
possessive adjectives should be changed accordingly, e.g., "I'' should be changed to "we'' and "my 
knowledge'' should be change d to "our knowledge.'' 
 
(ii) GOVERNMENT CERTIFICATION **  I,  (PRINTED NAME AND TITLE), currently employed by (GOVERNMENT), certify that I 
prepared or otherwise supervised the preparati on of the attached submission of (IDENTIFY THE 
SPECIFIC SUBMISSION BY TITLE AND DATE) pursuant to the (INSERT ONE OF THE 
FOLLOWING:  THE (ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING DUTY) INVESTIGATION OF 
(PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER) or THE (DATES OF POR) (ADMINISTRATIVE OR NEW SHIPPER) REVIEW UNDER THE (ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING) DUTY ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY)) (CASE NUMBER) or THE SUNSET REVIEW OR CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCE REVIEW OR SCOPE RULING OR 
CIRCUMVENTION INQUIRY OF AD/CVD ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) 
(CASE NUMBER).  I certify that the information contained in this submission is accurate and 
complete to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that the information contained in this submission 
may be subject to verification or corroboration (as appropriate) by the U.S. Department of Commerce. 
I am also aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal 
sanctions on individuals who know ingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. 
Government.  In addition, I am aware that, even if  this submission may be withdrawn from the record 
of the AD/CVD proceeding, the Department may preserve this submission, including a business proprietary submission, for purposes of determining the accuracy of this certification.  I certify that I am filing a copy of this signed certification with th is submission to the U.S. Department of Commerce 
and that I will retain the original for a five-year pe riod commencing with the filing of this document.  
The original will be available for inspection by U.S. Department of Commerce officials. 
 Signature: _____________  Date: _______________  
** For multiple person certificati ons, all persons should be listed in the first sentence of the 
certification and all persons should sign and date the certification.  In addition, singular pronouns and 
possessive adjectives should be changed accordingly, e.g., "I'' should be changed to "we'' and "my 
knowledge'' should be change d to "our knowledge.'' 
 
 
OR  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 Page 66 
 
 
  I, (name and title), currently employed by (perso n), certify that (1) I have read the attached 
submission, and (2) the information contained in th is submission is, to the best of my knowledge, 
complete and accurate.  
(2) For the legal counsel or other representative: 
 REPRESENTATIVE CERTIFICATION ***  I,  (PRINTED NAME), with  (LAW FIRM or OTHER FIRM), counsel or representative to 
(COMPANY OR GOVERNMENT OR PARTY), certify that I have read the attached submission of 
(IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC SUBMISSION BY TITLE AND DATE) pursuant to the (INSERT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:  THE (ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING DUTY) INVESTIGATION OF (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER) or THE (DATES OF POR) (ADMINISTRATIVE OR NEW SHIPPER) REVIEW UNDER THE (ANTIDUMPING OR 
COUNTERVAILING) DUTY ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER) 
or THE SUNSET REVIEW OR CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCE REVIEW OR SCOPE RULING OR CIRCUMVENTION INQUIRY OF AD/CVD ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER).  In my capacity as an adviser, counsel, preparer or reviewer of this submission, I certify that the information contained in this submis sion is accurate and complete to the best of my 
knowledge. I am aware that U.S. law (including, bu t not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal 
sanctions on individuals who know ingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. 
Government.  In addition, I am aware that, even if  this submission may be withdrawn from the record 
of the AD/CVD proceeding, the Department may preserve this submission, including a business proprietary submission, for purposes of determining the accuracy of this certification.  I certify that I am filing a copy of this signed certification with th is submission to the U.S. Department of Commerce 
and that I will retain the original for a five-year pe riod commencing with the filing of this document.  
The original will be available for inspection by U.S. Department of Commerce officials. 
 Signature: _____________  Date: _______________ 
 
*** For multiple representative certifications, all re presentatives and their firms should be listed in 
the first sentence of the certification and all represen tatives should sign and date the certification.  In 
addition, singular pronouns and possessive adjectives should be changed accordingly, e.g., "I'' should 
be changed to "we'' and "my knowledge'' should be ch anged to "our knowledge.'' 
 
[FR Doc. 2011-22344 Filed 9-1-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P    
__________