Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 183 (Friday, September 20, 2013)

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57790-57796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

19 CFR Part 351

[Docket No. 121231747-3659-01]
RIN 0625-AA94

Extension of Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is modifying its
regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in
antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) proceedings. The
modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time
limits before any time limit established under Part 351 expires. This
modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a
separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under
which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the
extension of time limits.

DATES: Effective date: October 21, 2013. Applicability date: This rule
will apply to all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna Theiss at (202) 482-5052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 16, 2013, the Department published a proposed
modification of its regulation at 19 CFR 351.302, which concerns the
extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD proceedings. See
Modification of Regulation Regarding the Extension of Time Limits, 78
FR 3367 (January 16, 2013) (Proposed Rule). The Department

[[Page 57791]]

received several comments on the Proposed Rule and has addressed those
comments below. The Proposed Rule, comments received, and this final
rule can be accessed using the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.Regulations.gov under Docket Number ITA-2012-0006. After analyzing
and carefully considering all of the comments that the Department
received in response to the Proposed Rule, the Department has adopted
the modification with certain changes, and is amending its regulations
accordingly.

Explanation of Regulatory Provision and Final Modification

Prior to this modification, 19 CFR 351.302(c) provided that a party
may request an extension before the applicable time limit specified
under section 351.301 expires. The prior rule provides that a request
for an extension must be in writing, filed in accordance with the
relevant regulatory provision, and state the reasons for the request.
If the Secretary does not exercise his discretion to extend the time
limit, which must be approved in writing, section 351.302(d) sets forth
the procedures for the rejection of untimely-filed or unsolicited
material.
The Department is modifying section 351.302(c) to provide
additional certainty to parties participating in AD and CVD proceedings
in two important areas. First, the final rule will clarify that parties
may request an extension of any time limit established by Part 351,
rather than limiting extension requests to time limits for submissions
established under section 351.301. Prior to this modification, the
Department's regulations did not permit parties to request extensions
of time limits for submissions other than for those established in
section 351.301. Thus, this modification makes explicit that parties
may request extensions for any time limit established under Part 351.
This modification is also consistent with section 351.302(b), which
provides that the Secretary may, for good cause, extend any time limit
established under this part.
Further, the Department is modifying section 351.302(c) to clarify
and confirm the specific circumstances under which the Department will
consider untimely-filed extension requests. Prior to this modification,
the regulation did not account for extension requests filed after the
time limit; section 351.302(c) merely stated that ``before the
applicable time limit expires . . . a party may request an extension.''
In the vast majority of situations, parties should be able to request
an extension early enough to provide an adequate opportunity for the
Department to consider the request before the time limit expires. The
Department is therefore modifying 19 CFR 351.302(c) to specify that an
untimely-filed extension request will not be considered unless the
party demonstrates that extraordinary circumstances exist. Only if the
Department determines that the party has demonstrated that
extraordinary circumstances exist will the Department then consider
whether the party has demonstrated that good cause exists for allowing
an extension of the time limit pursuant to section 351.302(b).
Prior to the modification, the Department frequently encountered
the situation in which a party filed an extension request so close to
the time limit that the Department did not have the opportunity to
respond to the request before the time limit expires. These last-minute
extension requests often resulted in confusion among the parties,
difficulties in the Department's organization of its work, and undue
expenditures of Departmental resources, which impeded the Department's
ability to conduct AD and CVD proceedings in a timely and orderly
manner. After consideration of the comments, and as discussed below,
the Department considers that an extension request is untimely if it is
filed after the applicable time limit expires. The Department has also
determined that there will be a separate standard for requests for the
extension of time limits for submissions that are due from multiple
parties simultaneously, such as case and rebuttal briefs, pursuant to
section 351.309. The Department finds that this separate standard is
useful to avoid a circumstance in which, for instance, one party
requests a last-minute extension of the time limit to file its case
brief, with the result that it may review other parties' timely-filed
briefs and thus obtain an advantage over the other parties. Thus, the
Department is modifying 19 CFR 351.302(c) to specify that an extension
request will be considered untimely if it is received after the
applicable time limit expires or as otherwise specified by the
Secretary. These modifications will diminish the cumulative impact of
last-minute extension requests on the parties and the Department.

Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule

The Department received five comments on its Proposed Rule. Below
is a summary of the comments, grouped by issue category, followed by
the Department's response.

1. Extension Requests for All Time Limits Established by Part 351

All commenters support modifying 19 CFR 351.302(c) to clarify that
parties may request an extension of any time limit established by Part
351 (``Antidumping and Countervailing Duties''), rather than limiting
extension requests to submissions under section 351.301 as in the prior
rule. One commenter noted that this modification codifies existing
practice.
Response: The Department agrees. The final rule specifies that
parties may request an extension of any time limit established by Part
351.

2. Untimely Extension Requests in General

In the Proposed Rule, the Department requested comment on whether
the term ``untimely'' should include extension requests that are made
very close to the applicable time limit. For example, an untimely-filed
extension request could be defined as one that is received less than 48
or 24 hours before the applicable time limit expires. One commenter
suggests that the term ``untimely'' includes any request that is filed
less than 24 hours before the applicable time limit expires. Another
commenter suggests that the term ``untimely'' includes any time limit
that is filed less than 48 hours before the applicable time limit
expires. Another commenter argues that a time limit, after which time
the extension request is untimely, can be arbitrary, given the
variances in the amount of time the Department sets for submissions and
the types of submissions. For example, a specific cut-off point for
requesting extensions may be unreasonable for a submission that has a
three-day time limit. Citing such concerns, several commenters argue
that the term ``untimely'' should be defined as an extension request
which is received after the applicable time limit expires. One
commenter alleges that the Department warns parties not to file
extension requests ``too early.''
Response: A standard that defines ``untimely'' as 24 or 48 hours
before the time limit expires could be unreasonable or difficult to
administer because of submissions with short time limits and the effect
of intervening weekends or holidays on the 24- or 48-hour time period.
Therefore, we have determined that the term ``untimely'' in the final
rule is defined as an extension request that is received after the
applicable time limit expires. This standard will apply to submissions
that are not due from multiple parties simultaneously or, if the same
time limit

[[Page 57792]]

applies to multiple parties, there is no advantage to be obtained in
being able to review other parties' submissions before the party files
its own submission. Examples include questionnaire responses,
supplemental questionnaire responses, and separate rate certifications
and applications.
Concerning when the time limit expires, if a submission is due on
Monday, December 2, 2013, for example, the submission must be received
by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on that date.\1\ If a party requests an
extension of that time limit, the party's extension request must be
received before 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 2, 2013, or it will be
considered untimely. On the other hand, if the Department specifies
that a submission is due on Monday, December 2, 2013, at 12:00 noon,
the party's extension request must be received before 12:00 noon on
Monday, December 2, 2013, or it will be considered untimely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parties should be aware that the likelihood of the Department
granting an extension will decrease the closer the extension request is
filed to the applicable time limit because the Department must have
time to consider the extension request and decide on its disposition.
Parties should not assume that they will receive an extension of a time
limit if they have not received a response from the Department. For
submissions that are due at 5:00 p.m., if the Department is not able to
notify the party requesting the extension of the disposition of the
request by 5:00 p.m., then the submission would be due by the opening
of business (8:30 a.m.) on the next work day. See 19 CFR 351.103(b).
The Department intends to adhere strictly to 19 CFR 351.302(c),
which provides that the Department must approve extension requests in
writing. However, for requests that are filed very close to the time
limit, the Department may issue a verbal response to a party's
extension request before the applicable time limit expires and issue a
written response as soon as practicable. Concerning one commenter's
anecdote that Department officials have warned against filing extension
requests ``too early,'' the Department notes that the earlier an
extension request is filed, the more likely the Department may consider
the extension request, decide on its disposition, and inform the
requesting party of its decision before the time limit expires. This
will provide certainty and reduce confusion for the parties.

3. Untimely Extension Requests for Submissions That Are Due From
Multiple Parties Simultaneously

In the Proposed Rule, the Department also requested comment on
whether there should be a separate standard for extension requests for
submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, such as
case and rebuttal briefs, pursuant to section 351.309. The commenter
that suggested that extension requests should be filed 48 hours before
the applicable time limit expires to be considered timely also suggests
that, for submissions that are due from multiple parties
simultaneously, the extension requests should be filed 48 hours before
the applicable time limit expires to be considered timely. One
commenter suggests that a requirement that extension requests be filed
48 hours before the time limit expires would be difficult for rebuttal
briefs, which often have a five-day time limit. Another commenter
argued that extension requests for case and rebuttal briefs may be
considered untimely if they are filed less than 48 hours before the
applicable time limit expires because these time limits are set well in
advance of the deadlines.
Response: As with the second issue, above, the commenters have
identified reasonable concerns with the Department's establishment of a
time limit for the extension request which precedes the scheduled time
limit for the submission. We understand these concerns, but find that a
separate, earlier time limit for extension requests for submissions
that are due from multiple parties simultaneously is appropriate to
avoid situations in which one party requests a last-minute extension of
the time limit to file its case brief, for instance, with the result
that it may review other parties' timely-filed briefs and thus obtain
an advantage over the other parties. Although the Department used case
and rebuttal briefs as examples of the types of submissions that would
be subject to this standard in the Proposed Rule, this standard will
apply to submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously
where one party may obtain an advantage by reviewing other parties'
submissions before the party files its own submission. Examples
include: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under section
351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under section
351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal,
clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate
country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S.
Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value
questionnaires.
The Department has adopted a standard under which an extension
request will be considered untimely if it is not filed by 10:00 a.m. on
the due date. For example, if a submission is due on Monday, December
2, 2013, and a party requests an extension of that time limit, the
party's extension request must be received before 10:00 a.m. on Monday,
December 2, 2013, or it will be considered untimely. With a uniform
10:00 a.m. deadline, the Department will not be required to decide
repeatedly whether an extension request is untimely. It will also
provide adequate opportunity for the Department to decide on the
disposition of the extension request, and, if the Department grants the
extension request, to inform all parties subject to the time limit that
the time limit has been extended. This will ensure that all parties
subject to the time limit are made aware of the extension before the
time limit expires, and to plan accordingly.
Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a
different time by which extension requests will be considered untimely.
For example, if a submission is due on Friday, December 6, 2013, at
12:00 noon, the Department may determine that extension requests must
be received by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2013, or they will be
considered untimely. In that case, the Department will inform parties
in the letter or memorandum setting forth the time limit that extension
requests must be received by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2013,
or they will be considered untimely. In addition, the Department
intends to set the time by which extension requests will be considered
untimely for the submission of quantity and value questionnaires on a
case-by-case basis.

4. Extraordinary Circumstances

With the exception of one commenter that thought that a ``good
cause'' standard should apply to untimely-filed extension requests, the
commenters agree with an ``extraordinary circumstances'' standard for
untimely-filed extension requests, which is higher than ``good cause.''
The comments suggested definitions, such as a situation that did not
exist, or about which the requestor was unaware, prior to the beginning
of the untimely period,

[[Page 57793]]

and generally requested clarity as to what constitutes an extraordinary
circumstance, such as whether technical difficulties with IA ACCESS
constitute extraordinary circumstances.
Response: We have not adopted the commenter's proposal that an
untimely-filed extension request will not be considered unless the
party demonstrates that good cause exists. In most situations, a party
should be able to request an extension before the applicable time limit
expires, because a party should be aware of the circumstances requiring
an extension. In addition, the standard under which the Department
evaluates timely-filed extension requests is ``good cause.'' See 19 CFR
351.302(b). It would be counterproductive to set the same standard for
untimely extension requests because parties would have no incentive for
filing timely extension requests. Concerning the definition of
extraordinary circumstances, the Department has determined that an
extraordinary circumstance is an unexpected event that: (1) Could not
have been prevented if reasonable measures had been taken and (2)
precludes a party or its representative from timely filing an extension
request through all reasonable means. For any untimely-filed extension
request, it is the party's responsibility to demonstrate that
extraordinary circumstances exist, and the Department will make a
determination whether extraordinary circumstances exist based on the
specific facts, taking into account whether reasonable means could have
been used to file a timely request or if reasonable measures could have
been taken to prevent the unexpected event from occurring. Examples of
extraordinary circumstances include a natural disaster, riot, war,
force majeure, or medical emergency. Examples that are unlikely to be
considered extraordinary circumstances include insufficient resources,
inattentiveness, or the inability of a party's representative to access
the Internet on the day on which the submission was due.
Concerning whether problems with IA ACCESS constitute
``extraordinary circumstances,'' a technical failure of IA ACCESS
generally is not an extraordinary circumstance. If IA ACCESS is
``unable to accept filings continuously or intermittently over the
course of any period of time greater than one hour between 12:00 noon
and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time or for any duration of time between 4:31
p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, then a person may manually file the
document in the APO/Dockets Unit.'' 19 CFR 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(B). The IA
ACCESS Handbook states that ``any electronic submissions that are
postponed due to a technical failure of the IA ACCESS system may not be
made without having first obtained an extension of the due date from
the applicable AD/CVD Office.'' See Handbook on Electronic Filing
Procedures, available at: https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf. Thus, in
general, a technical failure of IA ACCESS will not be considered an
extraordinary circumstance. However, in certain, limited situations,
the Department may find that a technical failure of IA ACCESS is an
extraordinary circumstance if, for instance, the party and its
representative are located outside of the DC metropolitan area and IA
ACCESS is continuously unavailable before the submission is due.

5. Notice of Extension Request

Two commenters suggest that parties to a proceeding should be given
notice before a party makes an extension request. One commenter
suggests requiring the party seeking the request to notify the other
parties that it is requesting an extension as is often done in
practice; another commenter suggests that, if a party requests an
extension less than 48 hours before the applicable time limit expires,
the party must seek consent from the other parties before requesting an
extension. One commenter argued that all extension requests should be
filed separately from other submissions to put the other parties to a
proceeding on notice.
Response: The Department has not adopted the proposals concerning
notice of extension requests because it is the responsibility of the
Department to set and manage the schedule of the segment of the
proceeding, not that of the parties to the proceeding. The Department
also finds that it would be difficult to monitor whether the party
requesting the extension had notified the other parties before
requesting an extension and this could delay the Department's
disposition of the extension request. Concerning the suggestion that
extension requests should be filed separately, the Department agrees.
An extension request which is filed independently of factual
information or argument is likely to come to the Department's attention
more quickly, thus increasing the chance that the Department will be
able to efficiently respond to the extension request. We have adopted
this proposal and have modified 19 CFR 351.302(c) to require that an
extension request be filed in a separate, stand-alone submission.

6. Changes to 19 CFR 351.301

One commenter argues that any changes to 19 CFR 351.302 must be
considered in light of a complete overhaul of 19 CFR 351.301. The
commenter argues that there are numerous problems with the Department's
time limits, such as initial questionnaire responses that are due less
than thirty days from the date of receipt of the questionnaire, ``in
contravention of {World Trade Organization (WTO){time} protocols.''
The commenter argues that the Department should provide additional time
for the submission of supplemental questionnaire responses, and case
and rebuttal briefs. The commenter urges the Department to write better
questions and to limit overlapping deadlines for submissions. The
commenter argues that some time limits are unreasonably short, so
requiring a party to file an extension request 72 hours before the
applicable time limit expires may not be reasonable under any
circumstances. The commenter is concerned that the number of extension
requests may increase.
Response: The Department has not adopted this proposal. The
Department is not modifying section 351.301 or section 351.309, and in
fact, section 351.301 was recently modified, after notice and comment,
to improve the Department's procedures concerning the submission of
factual information. See Definition of Factual Information and Time
Limits for Submission of Factual Information, 78 FR 21246 (April 10,
2013). As to the commenter's argument that the Department's time limits
provide less than thirty days for the submission of factual information
in questionnaire responses in contravention of ``WTO protocols,'' the
commenter is incorrect: section 351.301(c)(1)(i) provides that initial
questionnaire responses are due 30 days from the date of the initial
questionnaire; only if the questionnaire is divided into separate
sections is the time limit for individual sections shortened. This is
consistent with the WTO AD and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Agreements. Finally, the Proposed Rule did not suggest that an
extension request may be considered untimely if it were received 72
hours before the applicable time limit expired; rather, the Department
requested comment on whether an extension request may be considered
untimely if it were received either 24 or 48 hours before the
applicable time limit expired. The Department does not

[[Page 57794]]

agree with the commenter's concern that extension requests will
increase as a result of the final rule.

7. No Extensions for Certain Submissions

One commenter suggests that the Department refuse to consider
extension requests after the time limit expires for certain important
issues that are controlled by one party, such as market viability
claims, cost allegations, major input allegations and upstream subsidy
allegations. See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2).
Response: The Department has not adopted this proposal. The
Department has the discretion to extend any time limit established
under Part 351 for good cause, and will not limit its discretion.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

In the final rule, the Department has added ``in a separate, stand-
alone submission'' to 19 CFR 351.302(c). The Department has added 19
CFR 351.302(c)(1), to specify that an extension request will be
considered untimely if it is received after the applicable time limit
expires or as otherwise specified by the Secretary, and 19 CFR
351.302(c)(2), to define ``extraordinary circumstance.''

Classification

Executive Order 12866

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Department has prepared the following Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis.

1. A Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule

This final rule is intended to alter the Department's regulation
for AD and CVD proceedings; specifically, to modify the regulation
concerning the extension of time limits. The final rule would clarify
that parties may request the extension of any time limit established
under Part 351, as opposed to the prior rule, which only addresses
requests for the extension of time limits specified under section
351.301.
The final rule would also establish an ``extraordinary
circumstances'' standard by which the Department would consider
untimely filed extension requests because the prior rule only addresses
extension requests that are filed before the applicable time limit for
the submission expires. The final rule also establishes that an
extension request must be filed in a separate, stand-alone submission.
The legal basis for this rule is 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1202 note;
19 U.S.C. 1303 note; 19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.; and 19 U.S.C. 3538. No
other Federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

2. A Statement of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in
Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of
the Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any
Changes in the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such Comments

The Department received no comments concerning the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

3. The Response of the Agency to Any Comments Filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in
Response to the Proposed Rule, and a Detailed Statement of Any Change
Made to the Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a Result of the Comments

The Department received no comments from the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA.

4. A Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of Why No Such Estimate Is
Available

The final rule will apply to any interested party, as defined in
section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, requesting
extension of time limits for the submissions in AD and CVD proceedings.
This could include any party participating in an AD or CVD proceeding,
including exporters and producers of merchandise subject to AD and CVD
proceedings and their affiliates, importers of such merchandise,
domestic producers of like products, and foreign governments. However,
it will only apply to those parties that request an extension of time
limits in an AD or CVD proceeding.
Exporters and producers of subject merchandise are rarely U.S.
companies. Some producers and exporters of subject merchandise do have
U.S. affiliates, some of which may be considered small entities under
the appropriate SBA small business size standard. The Department is not
able to estimate the number of U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters and
producers that may be considered small entities, but anticipates, based
on its experience in these proceedings, that the number will not be
substantial.
Importers may be U.S. or foreign companies, and some of these
entities may be considered small entities under the appropriate SBA
small business size standard. The Department does not anticipate that
the final rule will impact a substantial number of small importers
because importers of subject merchandise who are not also producers and
exporters (or their affiliates) rarely submit factual information in
the course of the Department's AD and CVD proceedings, and those that
do tend to be larger entities.
Some domestic producers of like products may be considered small
entities under the appropriate SBA small business size standard.
Although it is unable to estimate the number of producers that may be
considered small entities, the Department does not anticipate that the
number affected by the final rule will be substantial. Frequently,
domestic producers that bring a petition account for a large amount of
the domestic production within an industry, so it is unlikely that
these domestic producers will be small entities.
In sum, while recognizing that exporter and producer affiliates,
importers, and domestic producers that submit information in AD and CVD
proceedings will likely include some small entities, the Department,
based on its experience with these proceedings and the participating
parties, does not anticipate that the final rule would impact a
substantial number of small entities.

5. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Final Rule

The final rule will require a party submitting an untimely-filed
extension request to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances
exist. This will not amount to a significant burden. Under normal
circumstances, a party should be able to submit its extension request
in a timely manner because an extension request is a straightforward
and usually concise document, identifying only the material to be
submitted, the current time limit, the requested extension of that time
limit, and the reason for the extension request. In other words, there
is no reason to submit extension requests in an untimely manner except
under extraordinary circumstances. Thus, if a party files its extension
request in an untimely manner, the extraordinary circumstances for
submitting the extension request in an untimely manner will be readily
available to the party making the untimely extension request.

[[Page 57795]]

6. A Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each of the Other Significant
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect the
Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected

The Department has taken steps to minimize the significant economic
impact on small entities. As discussed above, all parties may request
an extension pursuant to section 351.302, and the Department will
continue to grant extensions of time limits to the extent that they are
warranted and deadlines for the segment permit. Further, the Department
considered significant alternatives to the final rule. The alternatives
are:
(1) Maintaining the current rule, which does not address extension
requests for time limits established in provisions other than Sec.
351.301, or untimely-filed extension requests;
(2) Modifying the rule to establish that parties can request an
extension of any time limit established under this part, and that
untimely-filed extension requests will not be considered unless the
party demonstrates that good cause exists;
(3) Modifying the rule to establish that parties can request an
extension of any time limit established under this part and that
untimely-filed extension requests will not be considered; and
(4) Modifying the standard for ``untimely'' to require extension
requests to be filed 24 or 48 hours before the time limit expires.
The Department does not anticipate that the first alternative will
have a significant economic impact on small entities. The Department
determined that maintaining the current rule and not addressing
extension requests for time limits other than those established under
section 351.301, and not including a standard concerning untimely-filed
extension requests, will not serve the objective of the proposed rule.
If the Department maintained the current rule, then there would be no
standard under which the Department would consider untimely-filed
extension requests. This would not provide certainty to parties
participating in AD and CVD proceedings, and would not address the
administrative issues that the Department has encountered with
untimely-filed extension requests. Thus, although this alternative was
considered, it was not chosen.
The Department also considered modifying the rule to clarify that a
party may request an extension of any time limit established under this
part and to establish that the Department will not consider an
untimely-filed extension request unless the party demonstrates that
good cause exists, described as alternative two. As discussed in the
consideration of its preferred alternative, the clarification that a
party may request an extension request of any time limit established by
this part serves the objectives of the proposed rule because it makes
clear that 19 CFR 351.302(c) applies to extension requests for any time
limit established by this part.
The Department next considered a ``good cause'' standard for
untimely-filed extension requests. As with the ``extraordinary
circumstances'' standard included in the final rule, this alternative
establishes a standard under which untimely-filed extension requests
will be considered, which is missing from the current rule. The
disadvantage to this alternative is that the ``good cause'' exists as
the standard by which the Department already considers timely-filed
extension requests under the current rule. Therefore, a party would
have no reason to submit its extension request in a timely manner,
because the same standard would apply as if the extension request were
filed in an untimely manner. This will not serve the objective of the
proposed rule to avoid confusion, will perpetuate the current
difficulties in the Department's organization of its work, and will
perpetuate the undue expenditure of Departmental resources in
addressing extension requests. Thus, this alternative was not chosen.
The Department also considered modifying the rule to clarify that a
party may request an extension of any time limit established under this
part and to establish that the Department will not consider any
untimely-filed extension requests, described as alternative three. The
clarification that an extension request may be of any time limit
established by Part 351 serves the objectives of the proposed rule
because it makes clear that 19 CFR 351.302(c) applies to extension
requests for any time limit established by Part 351. However, the
Department does recognize that extraordinary, extenuating circumstances
can and do arise which may prevent a party from submitting a timely-
filed extension request, and, therefore, it considers this alternative
to be too inflexible to permit the Department to effectively and fairly
administer the AD and CVD laws. Thus, it has not been chosen.
Modifying the standard for ``untimely'' submissions does not impose
any significant burden on the parties in AD or CVD proceedings.
However, there are some concerns with this approach, including: (a) the
effect on the 24- or 48-hour period if there is an intervening weekend
and/or holiday; and (b) submissions with short time limits. If the
Department were to adopt this alternative, it would need to establish
criteria to address these issues. For example, if the time limit is
less than five days, then the extension request is untimely if it is
filed less than eight hours before the time limit expires. The
Department recognizes that the 24- or 48-hour policy has the potential
to create some of the same problems regarding weekends and holidays as
the current rule, and in the case of rebuttal briefs and other
submissions with short deadlines, it could prove difficult to comply
with. Thus, it has not been chosen.

Small Business Compliance Guide

In accordance with Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the agency has published a guide to
assist small entities in complying with the rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not require a collection of information for purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351

Administrative practice and procedure, Antidumping, Business and
industry, Cheese, Confidential business information, Countervailing
duties, Freedom of information, Investigations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 13, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
For the reasons stated, 19 CFR Part 351 is amended as follows:

PART 351--ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES

0
1. The authority citation for 19 CFR part 351 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1202 note; 19 U.S.C. 1303
note; 19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.; and 19 U.S.C. 3538.

0
2. In Sec. 351.302, revise paragraph (c) as follows:

Sec. 351.302 Extension of time limits; return of untimely filed or
unsolicited material.

* * * * *

[[Page 57796]]

(c) Requests for extension of specific time limit. Before the
applicable time limit established under this part expires, a party may
request an extension pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. An
untimely filed extension request will not be considered unless the
party demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance exists. The
request must be in writing, in a separate, stand-alone submission,
filed consistent with Sec. 351.303, and state the reasons for the
request. An extension granted to a party must be approved in writing.
(1) An extension request will be considered untimely if it is
received after the applicable time limit expires or as otherwise
specified by the Secretary.
(2) An extraordinary circumstance is an unexpected event that:
(i) Could not have been prevented if reasonable measures had been
taken, and
(ii) Precludes a party or its representative from timely filing an
extension request through all reasonable means.

[FR Doc. 2013-22853 Filed 9-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P