Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 39263-39278 [2011-16352]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[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]



[[Page 39263]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

19 CFR Part 351

[Docket No.100614263-1331-02]
RIN 0625-AA84


Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic 
Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is amending 
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 electronic filing 
and documents management program. More detailed procedures for 
electronic filing are set forth in a document separate from the 
regulations that is entitled ``IA ACCESS Handbook On Electronic Filing 
Procedures'' (``IA ACCESS Handbook''), which the Department has 
published on its Web site at https://iaaccess.trade.gov.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of this final rule is August 
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: Evangeline 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 published proposed amendments 
to the rules governing the submission of information to the Department 
in antidumping duty (``AD'') and countervailing duty (``CVD'') 
proceedings and requested comments from the public. 75 FR 44163 
(September 28, 2010) (``Proposed Rule''). The Proposed Rule included 
changes resulting from the 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 pilot 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 https://www.Regulations.gov under Docket Number ITA-2010-0003. After analyzing 
and carefully considering all of the comments that the Department 
received in response to the Proposed Rule and after review of the 
experience gained during the IA ACCESS Pilot Program and the comments 
thereto, the Department has amended 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), and 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 Enforcement 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) and 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 
necessary, the time of the receipt. To implement electronic filing 
procedures, the Department is amending the regulation so that the 
Department will consider a document to be officially received by the 
Department only when it is filed electronically in its entirety using 
IA ACCESS, in accordance with Sec.  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 document 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 
requirement, 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 commenter 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 electronic filing requirement under certain circumstances for 
which no exception applies, the submitter must notify the Department 
promptly of any difficulties encountered in filing the document 
electronically.'' Proposed Rule, 75 FR at 44164 (emphasis added). The 
commenter stated that the Department should unconditionally allow the 
relevant exception to apply, rather than make each situation a judgment 
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 state that if a 
submitter experiences difficulty in filing a document electronically 
for which no exception 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.

[[Page 39264]]

    Section 351.103(d)(1) of the prior 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 the interested party's inclusion in the public service 
list for the segment of the proceeding. The new regulation also refers 
to the definition of ``interested party'' under Sec.  351.102(b)(29) to 
improve and clarify 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 
with 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 APO applications in Sec.  
351.305(b)(2) and the requirement that parties serve the complete final 
business proprietary 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 Return of Untimely Filed or Unsolicited Material

Section 351.104

    Section 351.104(a) pertains to the official record of AD and CVD 
proceedings. The prior regulation stated that the CRU will maintain an 
official 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 continue to maintain the official record in paper 
form for those documents that were filed prior to the implementation of 
IA ACCESS.
    In addition, Sec.  351.104(a) previously stated 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 which the official record will 
include a copy of a returned document. Sections 351.302(a) and 
351.302(d) also previously set forth the procedures for requesting an 
extension of time limits and procedures for returning untimely filed 
submissions. The Department is amending these sections by replacing the 
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 Proposed Rule, 
the Department proposed adding a statement that the public record will 
also be accessible online at https://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 implementation. 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 (which begins on the effective date of this final rule), 
the public will be able to access the public record on IA ACCESS from 
computers in the CRU. After the second phase of implementation of IA 
ACCESS, the public will be able to access the public record on the 
Department's Web site from any computer with Internet access. Because 
the public record will not be accessible from the Web site on the 
effective 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 requesting 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 
clarify 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. The 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 writing and properly filed. The only 
change in the final regulation is a reference to the requirement that 
the extension request must be filed consistent with Sec.  351.303, 
which contains the electronic 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 other 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), 351.303(d), and 
351.303(f). Filing, Document Identification, Format, Specifications and 
Markings, and Service

    The Department is amending Sec.  351.303 to require electronic 
filing of all documents and to specify when manual filing will be 
accepted as an alternative. The Department is also clarifying the 
identification of documents and correcting minor 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 amending 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 section by designating it as subparagraph 
(1). The Department is also including in Sec.  351.303(b)(1) the term 
``Eastern Time'' to clarify the time a submission is due when the 
submitter may be filing the submission from a different time zone. The 
Department is also omitting the period after ``NW'' in the Department's 
address, which was a typographical error.
    In the Proposed Rule, the Department proposed specifying that 
manually filed submissions must be submitted between the hours of 8:30 
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time on business days, but that electronically 
filed submissions must be

[[Page 39265]]

filed by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. The reason for the 
distinction is that manually filed submissions 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 documents on days when the Department is 
closed. Another commenter stated that electronic filing largely 
eliminates the rationale for a 5 p.m. deadline and suggested that the 
Department should require that documents to be filed prior to midnight 
on that date. The same commenter proposed, alternatively, 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 avoid 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, the 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 midnight 
or, alternatively, 6 p.m. for submissions requiring multiple filing 
events, the Department has not adopted either proposal. The APO/Dockets 
Unit, which will continue to process manually filed 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 contains detailed filing procedures that a submitter 
must follow. The IA ACCESS Handbook is available on the Department's 
Web site at https://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 
Handbook. 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 exception in the IA ACCESS Handbook 
applies, in accordance with section 782(c) of the Tariff Act, as 
amended, the Department 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 with 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 forth in the regulations 
themselves, despite the commenter's agreement with the Department's 
rationale that the exceptions may evolve over time. The commenter 
stated that at a minimum, the initial list of exceptions 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 Web site. Another commenter requested that the Department 
establish a standard 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 
requirement. First, as proposed by one commenter, the Department has 
adopted a bulky document standard, whereby documents exceeding 500 
pages may be filed manually, with the inclusion of a cover 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 documents as parties make 
the transition to an electronic filing system. Manual filing is 
optional 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 ACCESS 
Handbook, and parties must follow those instructions.
    The Department has also exempted large database 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 size (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 those 
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.  351.303(b)(2)(ii)(B), the 
Department has specified that if the IA ACCESS system is unable to 
accept 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 line. Procedures for manual filing in this 
situation are provided in the IA ACCESS Handbook.
    Apart from the two exemptions specified in Sec.  
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 unable 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

[[Page 39266]]

provide a full explanation and suggested 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 blanket exemption for all submitters for future submissions.
    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 expanding the list of 
exceptions based on parties' experiences with other electronic filing 
systems.
    Although the Department indicated in the Proposed 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 exemptions in the regulations, subject to 
amendment through the notice and comment rulemaking process. Should the 
Department determine that additional exemptions are appropriate, 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 exhibits. We have not 
adopted these proposals. The Department has decided not to create 
standard exceptions 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 
has 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 ultimately 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 respondents and small 
businesses in assisting them through the filing process. With regard to 
this commenter's request for an exception for 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 that 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 format so 
that the characteristics of the physical exhibit may be included on the 
record of the proceeding. If the submitter wishes to submit a physical 
exhibit, the submitter will need to obtain prior 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 consider 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 Trade 
Commission's limits: 50 separate attachments of 25 MB each in a single 
filing event. Another commenter 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 format, 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 commenter 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 repetitive 
entry of identical information is burdensome and may lead to error. 
Finally, two commenters recommended including the ability to link 
documents, so that the Department can more easily piece together 
submissions where the individual sections exceed the size limitation.
    With respect to the comment on setting limits on file size, the 
Department has set the individual document file (i.e., case briefs, 
general comments, etc.) size limit to 4 MB per file. A document can be 
separated into numerous files, which can be uploaded in batches of 
five, provided each individual file is no larger than 4 MB and the 
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 limit 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 during 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 
data file size limit based on numerous factors, each of which have been 
considered and balanced. Such factors include the ability of the IA 
ACCESS system to accommodate the high volume of anticipated submissions 
based on current server resources, the difficulty for Department 
personnel to work 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 capable of accepting individual 
data files of 20 MB in size. In addition, the larger individual file 
size for data meets the important 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 may change over time as 
Internet resources expand throughout the world and the Department gains 
experience in administering the IA ACCESS system and using larger 
files.
    As for the commenter's statement that documentation must be 
submitted in JPEG format, IA ACCESS does not currently accept files in 
JPEG format.
    The Department acknowledges that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission and Court of International Trade have different file size 
limitations 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

[[Page 39267]]

factors noted above as well as the type, size, frequency, and security 
classification of documents. Thus, the Department has not chosen to 
align its file size limitations to those of the U.S. International 
Trade Commission and the Court of International Trade.

Section 782(c) of the Act

    One commenter noted that the Department did not propose to require 
submitters who notify the Department promptly of any difficulties 
encountered in submitting information to the Department to also provide 
a suggested alternative method for submitting the information, which 
seems to be required under section 782(c) of the Act. The commenter 
suggested that the Department specifically reference this obligation in 
its new regulation, particularly when the failure to comply with the 
requirement could substantially harm 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 that it 
did not discuss the requirement to propose an alternative method of 
submission in the regulations because it anticipates that the 
alternative 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 new regulations to put the public on notice of the requirement. 
Accordingly, the Department has amended 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. 
Specifically, 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 
generate the cover sheet online at https://iaaccess.trade.gov, and print 
it for submission to the APO/Dockets Unit along with the hardcopy 
manual submission. The purpose of the cover sheet is to provide the 
Department with information indicating, among other things, the party 
filing the submission, the segment of the proceeding, and the type of 
submission being filed. The cover sheet will 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 electronically. Although IA ACCESS 
requests the same information for an electronic filing as it requires 
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 deleted this reference 
from the final rule. The Department had previously proposed including a 
statement 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 because 
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 double-
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 properly when 
inputting the document information in IA ACCESS before filing the 
document. The document identification will determine who will have 
access to the document. Misidentification of a document 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'').
    The document classifications described in Sec.  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 
proprietary information, but the submitter does not agree to the 
release of the double-bracketed information 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 
will 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)(iv) and (v), which 
identify the two types of public submissions. The first is the ``Public 
Version,'' which corresponds to a business proprietary document, except 
it omits all business proprietary information, whether single or 
double-bracketed. This section also refers to the specific filing 
requirements for filing the public version, which is found in Sec.  
351.304(c). The second is the ``Public Document,'' 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

[[Page 39268]]

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 business day, while ``business 
proprietary document'' implies that no public version will be filed. 
The commenter 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 
amended 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 proposed amendment will 
generate confusion. A public version of a business proprietary document 
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 proprietary 
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 classifications on when the 
documents/versions are filed relative to one another. The Department's 
reasoning stems from the content of the submissions. When compared to 
the other document classifications, the business proprietary document 
is the complete document and contains all business proprietary 
information enclosed in brackets. Thus, it should be referred to as a 
``document'' and not a ``version.'' 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), 351.303(c)(2)(ii), and 351.303(c)(2)(iii), 
the Department is deleting the requirement that a person must file 
multiple copies 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 document). The Department has replaced these sections with 
Sec.  351.303(b)(2)(ii)(D), which specifies 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 implementation 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), the 
Department is deleting the sentence defining ``business proprietary 
version'' because it has been included in proposed Sec.  351.303(b)(4).
    Section 351.303(c)(2)(i) of the prior regulation stated 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 copy and changing 
``business proprietary version'' to ``business proprietary document'' 
to make the terminology 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 business 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 version of a document further shortens an already short deadline, 
especially when petitioners may be required to file responses to 
requests for additional information. In addition, because of the 
Department's obligation to provide a copy of the public version of the 
petition and all amendments to the petition to embassies of exporting 
countries named in a petition under Sec.  351.202(f), the Department 
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 regulation 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 other persons. The Department is 
amending this regulation to replace ``business proprietary version 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 specify that the final business 
proprietary document must be identical in all respects to the business 
proprietary document filed on the previous day, except for any 
bracketing corrections and the omission of the warning ``Bracketing of 
Business Proprietary Information Is Not 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 requisite 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 regulation 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 there are 
no bracketing corrections, a person need not serve a copy of the final 
business proprietary document 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.
    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 must simultaneously file with the 
Department one copy of those pages in which information in double 
brackets has been excluded. The Department is amending this section by 
adding a reference to Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(iii) and correctly 
identifying the document type as the ``Business Proprietary/APO 
Version.'' The Department now requires

[[Page 39269]]

a person to file the complete Business Proprietary/APO Version of the 
document, as opposed to only those pages in which the double-bracketed 
information 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 omitted was 
to conserve the amount of paper filed by the submitter. However, 
because the document will be filed electronically, the submitter will 
be able to reduce the amount of paper used while simultaneously 
ensuring 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, consistent with Sec.  351.305. The Department is deleting the 
statement that the Secretary may require submission of factual 
information on computer media because it implies that the Secretary may 
make 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 section 
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 information must be releasable under APO regardless 
of whether it is filed electronically or manually.
    The Department wants to emphasize that the complete databases 
submitted by the parties will now be maintained in an electronic format 
in the official and public files. Previously, parties submitted only 
one electronic copy of the database, which became the working copy used 
by the Department in performing its calculations. The official and 
public records only contained hardcopy printouts of the databases, and 
oftentimes, the printouts 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 consider how parties can bracket or seek business proprietary 
treatment for information on the databases when the format in which the 
data is presented does not allow for the use of brackets to indicate 
the 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 databases. For public versions of databases, the Department 
requires submitters to submit the public version in a PDF format. The 
public version of the database must still be publicly summarized and 
ranged in accordance with Sec.  351.304(c). The public version of the 
database, together with the narrative portion of a questionnaire 
response, will indicate the fields and values for which the submitter 
requests business proprietary treatment. Deeming the entire electronic 
database as business proprietary will not render each and every field 
and value submitted in the database as eligible for business 
proprietary treatment.
    One commenter stated that the Department already 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 seeks a 
uniform format that is widely available, acceptable by users, and 
compatible with most computer systems. Furthermore, as a PDF, the 
content of the submissions cannot be altered 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 Department has also 
made available in the IA ACCESS Handbook additional information as to 
file types accepted 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 rest of this section. Specifically, the Department has replaced the 
term ``copies'' with ``submissions'' because, 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 
subparagraphs (i) through (vi). The Department amended paragraph (d)(2) 
to specify the dimensions of letter-size paper (8\1/2\ x 11 inches). 
Because CRU staff will need to insert all manually filed submissions 
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 prohibited 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 print on 
letter-size (8\1/2\ x 11 inch) paper and double-spaced. The new 
regulation also specifies that spreadsheets, unusually sized exhibits, 
and databases are best utilized in their original printing format and 
should not be reformatted for submission.
    Section 351.303(d)(2)(iii) of our prior regulation required 
submitters to indicate on the third line of the upper

[[Page 39270]]

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 review, 
the type of review, and section number of the Act corresponding to the 
type of review. The Department 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 
document is submitted. The 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 
document is being filed, the Department has determined 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 must 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 
Proprietary/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 
typographical errors. The prior version of 351.303(d)(2)(v) also stated 
that the warning ``Bracketing of Business 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 multiple 
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 regulation required that 
public versions of business proprietary documents contain the marking 
requirements in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)-(v) of this section and that the 
first page is conspicuously marked ``Public Version.'' The Department 
is amending this section to refer to both the public version and the 
business 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 subparagraph 351.303(d)(2)(vii) 
to this 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 amendments bring the 
language in this section into conformity with the document 
classifications in paragraph (b)(4).

Section 351.303(f). Service of Copies on Other Persons

    Section 351.303(f) of the prior regulation stated that except as 
provided in sections 351.202(c), 351.207(f)(1), 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 the service list by personal service or first class mail. The 
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 stated that a 
party may serve a public version or a business proprietary version of a 
document containing 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 Department 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 clarify 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.
    One commenter stated that changes affecting service of business 
proprietary information should be introduced gradually, subject to 
extensive comment. Another commenter stated that the Department should 
mandate electronic service to parties on the respective service list 
(where allowed under the Department's regulations). That commenter 
noted that electronic service is consistent with the Department's 
stated goal of creating efficiencies in both the process and costs 
associated with filing and maintaining documents, and that electronic 
service would be consistent with the Court of International Trade's 
filing system currently in place. 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 affecting 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 requirement 
that parties serve the complete final business proprietary document 
when bracketing corrections 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 correcting a typographical 
error in Sec.  351.303(g), that regulation is currently the subject of 
another 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 
Submissions That Do Not Conform With Section 777(b) of the Act

    Section 351.304(b)(2)(iii) of the prior regulation stated that 
``the submitting person may exclude the information in double brackets 
from the business proprietary information version of the submission 
served on authorized

[[Page 39271]]

applicants.'' The Department is amending this sentence to replace 
``business proprietary information version'' with ``Business 
Proprietary/APO Version'' to make the terminology consistent with that 
in Sec.  351.303(b)(4)(iii).
    In addition, the Department is amending Sec.  351.304(b)(1) by 
creating two subsections. Subsection 351.304(b)(1)(i) addresses the 
identification 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 submitter 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 provided requirements 
for filing the public version of a business proprietary document. 
Section 351.304(c)(1) specified, among other things, that the public 
version must be filed on the first business day after the filing 
deadline for the ``business proprietary version of the submission.'' 
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).
    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 amend 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 proposed 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 amount 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 continues to find that requiring public summarization of one 
percent of each portion of data best implements section 777(b)(1)(B) of 
the Act, which requires public summaries of information submitted to 
the Department, 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 enumerated actions within two business days of the Secretary's 
explanation of its reasons for returning the 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 reject the submission. The 
Department will follow the same procedure for manually filed 
submissions. Thus, the Departm