Regulation Strengthening Accountability of Attorneys and Non-Attorney Representatives Appearing Before the Department, 38017-38019 [2012-15381]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
about/office_org/headquarters_offices/
agc/. The comment period is hereby
extended through Friday, August 17,
2012, and may be submitted via email
to ladeana.peden@faa.gov.
As part of its review of non-citizen
trusts, the FAA published a notice of its
proposed policy clarification on
February 9, 2012 (77 FR 6694) on use of
non-citizen trusts to register aircraft in
the United States. After the FAA
discusses the legal issues, the FAA will
suggest which provisions in trust
agreements may need to be changed and
it will suggest language that would
enable the FAA to facilitate the
registration of aircraft in the future that
are owned in trust. The suggested
language and the reasons for the
suggested language, if adopted as the
FAA’s final policy on this matter, will
guide the FAA in the future in
determining eligibility for registering
non-U.S. citizen trusts.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106g, 40113, 44701.
Issued in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on
June 13, 2012.
Joseph R. Standell,
Aeronautical Center Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012–15339 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
19 CFR Part 351
[Docket No. 120613168–2168–01]
RIN 0625–AA92
Regulation Strengthening
Accountability of Attorneys and NonAttorney Representatives Appearing
Before the Department
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and request for comments.
AGENCY:
The Department of Commerce
(the Department) proposes to amend its
regulations to add a subsection that
strengthens the accountability of
attorneys and non-attorney
representatives who appear in
proceedings before the Import
Administration (IA). If this proposed
rule is implemented, the Department
will continue its long-standing practice
of permitting attorneys and non-attorney
representatives to appear before IA. The
proposed rule provides that both
attorneys and non-attorney
representatives will be subject to
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:20 Jun 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
disciplinary action for misconduct
based upon good cause. The proposed
rule will assist the Department in
maintaining the integrity of its
proceedings by deterring misconduct by
those who appear before it in
antidumping duty (AD) and
countervailing duty (CVD) proceedings.
The Department is requesting comments
on the proposed rule as discussed in
more detail below.
DATES: The Department is requesting
public comment on this proposed rule.
To be assured consideration, all
comments must be received no later
than August 10, 2012. All comments
should refer to RIN 0625–AA92.
ADDRESSES: To ensure the timely receipt
and consideration of comments, the
Department requires all comments to be
submitted on-line through the Federal
eRulemaking portal at
www.regulations.gov, unless they do not
have access to the Internet. Comments
to this notice should be submitted under
docket number ITA–2012–0003. To find
this docket, enter the docket number in
the ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ window at
the www.regulations.gov home page and
click ‘‘Search.’’ The site will provide a
search-results page listing all documents
associated with that docket number.
Find a reference to the proposed rule
notice by selecting ‘‘Rule’’ under
‘‘Document Type’’ on the search-results
page, and click on the link entitled
‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ The
www.regulations.gov Web site provides
the option of making submissions by
filling in a comments field, or by
attaching a document. The International
Trade Administration (ITA) prefers
submissions to be provided in an
attached document. (For further
information on using the
www.regulations.gov Web site, please
consult the resources provided on the
Web site by clicking on the ‘‘Help’’ tab.)
Commenters who do not have access
to the Internet may submit the original
and two copies of each set of comments
by mail or hand delivery/courier. All
comments should be addressed to Paul
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, Room 1870,
Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230.
The Department will consider all
relevant comments regarding the
proposed rule that are received before
the close of the comment period. The
Department will not accept comments
accompanied by a request that part or
all of the material be treated
confidentially because of its business
proprietary nature or for any other
reason. All comments responding to this
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38017
notice will be a matter of public record
and will be available for inspection at
IA’s Central Records Unit (Room 7046 of
the Herbert C. Hoover Building) or on
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov.
Any questions concerning file
formatting, document conversion,
access to the Internet, or other electronic
filing issues should be addressed to
Andrew Lee Beller, Import
Administration Webmaster, at (202)
482–0866, email address: webmastersupport@ita.doc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michele Lynch, Senior Counsel, Office
of the General Counsel, Office of Chief
Counsel for Import Administration, or
Eric Greynolds, International Trade
Program Manager, Office 3, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230, 202–482–
2879 or 202–482–6071, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In August
2010, in support of the National Export
Initiative (NEI), the Department
announced a number of proposals to
strengthen the administration of the
U.S. AD and CVD laws. One proposal
addressed strengthening the
accountability of attorneys and nonattorneys who practice before the
Department. This proposal advances the
purpose of the NEI by continuing
rigorous enforcement of U.S. trade laws.
For decades, consistent with IA’s
regulations, attorneys and non-attorney
representatives have practiced before IA
without completing an application or
obtaining a license from the
Department. The proposed rule
continues this long-standing practice
and expressly identifies persons who
may appear before the agency, including
both attorneys and non-attorney
representatives, and provides that such
practitioners may be required to
demonstrate to the agency their
acceptability to act as practitioners. The
proposed rule also (i) Establishes a good
cause standard for the application of
sanctions for misconduct, (ii) identifies
possible sanctions for misconduct
including suspension and barring one
from practice before the agency or a
lesser sanction (that may be public or
private) at the Secretary’s discretion,
and (iii) permits attorneys and
representatives to have an opportunity
to present their views on the matter to
the Department. If attorneys or
representatives are suspended or barred
from practice before the Department, the
proposed rule provides that their names
will appear on a public register of
suspended or barred attorneys and
representatives.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
38018
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
The proposed rule is modeled after
the U.S. International Trade
Commission’s rule, 19 CFR 201.15, with
some modifications. Certain of the
modifications are necessary to ensure
that the proposed rule uses the same
terms already used by IA in its
regulations or that two terms have the
same intended meaning. Another
modification provides that the
Department will maintain a public
registry of persons who are suspended
or barred from practice. The public
nature of the registry will assist the
Department in its objective, i.e.,
maintaining the integrity of its
proceedings by deterring misconduct by
attorneys and non-attorney
representatives who appear before it.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Related Rulemaking
In 2004, the Department published a
notice of inquiry seeking public
comment about IA’s certification
requirements. See Certification and
Submission of False Statements to
Import Administration During
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings—Notice of Inquiry, 69 FR
3562 (January 26, 2004) (2004 Notice of
Inquiry) and Certification and
Submission of False Statements to
Import Administration During
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings—Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Request for Comments,
69 FR 56738 (September 22, 2004). In
response, IA received public comment
on whether it should strengthen its
certification process or promulgate
regulations concerning those who
provide false statements or engage in
fraudulent activity before the
Department. The certification process is
currently the subject of a separate
rulemaking. See Certification of Factual
Information to Import Administration
During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 7491
(February 10, 2011) (2011 Interim Final
Rule) and Certification of Factual
Information to Import Administration
During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Supplemental Interim Final Rule, 76 FR
54697 (September 2, 2011). However,
one of the questions asked by the
Department in 2004 was whether
attorneys and other professionals
appearing before the Department should
be subject to regulation for misconduct
before the Department. The Department
received comments in 2004 both
supporting and opposing such
regulation. Those comments are not part
of this proposed rulemaking and will
not be considered. As set forth above,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:20 Jun 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
the Department seeks public comment
on this 2012 proposed rule.
In promulgating the 2011 Interim
Final Rule, the Department included in
the proposed revision to the
certification regulation a reference to 18
U.S.C. 1001, reminding individuals
conducting business with the
Department and their representatives
that U.S. law imposes criminal
sanctions upon parties who knowingly
and willfully make material false
statements to the U.S. Government. In
its response to public comments, the
Department stated that it intended to
continue to refer certification violations
to offices better equipped to handle
such matters, such as the Department’s
Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
See 2011 Interim Final Rule, 76 FR at
2493–94. The promulgation of this
proposed rule strengthening the
accountability of attorney and nonattorney representatives is consistent
with the 2011 Interim Final Rule. The
Department will refer instances of
alleged certification violations to the
OIG. However, not every case of
misconduct constitutes a certification
violation. Under this proposed rule,
when the Department either receives
allegations that an attorney or nonattorney representative appearing before
it has engaged in misconduct or
inappropriate behavior, or is otherwise
aware of such misconduct or behavior,
for good cause and to protect the
integrity of its proceedings, it will take
disciplinary action against the offending
attorney or non-attorney representative.
Attorneys and non-attorney
representatives who are found, after
referral to the appropriate office, to have
engaged in a certification violation
when appearing before the Department
will also be subject to disciplinary
action under this proposed rule. In all
cases, disciplinary action may involve
reprimand (public or private),
suspension or disbarment from
appearing before the Department.
Classification
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the
Chief Counsel for Regulation at the
Department of Commerce certified to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small
Business Administration, that the
proposed rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. A
description of the action, why it is being
considered, and the legal basis for this
action are contained in the preamble to
this proposed rule. The factual basis for
this certification is as follows.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The purpose of this rule is to
strengthen the accountability of
attorneys and non-attorney
representatives who appear before the
Department. The objective of the
amendment is to implement measures
which continue to permit attorneys and
non-attorneys to represent persons
appearing in proceedings before the
Department while at the same time
providing that all such persons are
subject to public disciplinary action for
misconduct before the Department.
The entities who would be impacted
by this rule are attorneys and nonattorney representatives who appear in
proceedings before the Import
Administration. The Department cannot
elaborate on how many of the regulated
entities would be considered small
under the Small Business
Administration’s size standards because
it does not collect such data. Although
the Department does not collect data on
attorneys or non-attorney
representatives appearing before it,
historically, firms have included major
law firms in business in Washington,
DC, New York, and Chicago. We do not
anticipate that a substantial number of
small entities would be impacted by this
rule.
This proposed rule is expected to
have very small economic impacts to
the regulated entities as it is procedural
in nature. The rule establishes a ‘‘good
cause’’ standard to be applied to
discipline attorneys and non-attorney
representatives appearing before the
Department, yet it does not alter the
Department’s long-standing practice of
allowing such representation. There is
no application fee to appear before the
Department. There also are no monetary
penalties assessed if the Department
determines that good cause exists for
sanctioning an attorney or non-attorney
representative. The proposed rule could
be beneficial to small entities impacted
by this rule because it continues to
allow parties to use non-attorney
representatives in Department
proceedings, rather than requiring them
to retain an attorney, which might result
in financial savings to the small entities.
However, if the Department suspends or
disbars an attorney or non-attorney
representative as a result of this rule, it
may result in some economic impact,
unquantifiable at this time, as that
person would not be able to practice
before the Department. But, the
Department does not anticipate that a
substantial number of small entities
would be impacted because it
anticipates that attorneys and nonattorney representatives appearing
before it will conduct themselves
professionally and, historically, many of
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
the attorneys and non-attorney
representatives who appear before the
Department are from larger firms. For
these reasons, the Chief Counsel for
Regulation certified this rule would not
result in a significant economic impact
to a substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
It has been determined that this
rulemaking does not contain an
information collection subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
[FR Doc. 2012–15381 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that the
proposed rulemaking is not significant
for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13132
It has been determined that the
proposed rulemaking does not contain
federalism implications warranting the
preparation of a federalism assessment.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351
Administrative practice and
procedure, Antidumping duties,
Countervailing duties.
1. The authority citation for 19 CFR
part 351 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1202
note; 19 U.S.C. 1303 note; 19 U.S.C. 1671 et
seq.; and 19 U.S.C. 3538.
2. Add § 351.313 to subpart C to read
as follows:
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Attorneys or representatives.
No register of attorneys or
representatives who may practice before
the Department is maintained. No
application for admission to practice is
required. Any person desiring to appear
as attorney or representative before the
Department may be required to show to
the satisfaction of the Secretary his
acceptability in that capacity. Any
attorney or representative practicing
before the Department, or desiring so to
practice, may for good cause shown be
suspended or barred from practicing
before the Department, or have imposed
on him such lesser sanctions (e.g.,
public or private reprimand) as the
Secretary deems appropriate, but only
after he has been accorded an
opportunity to present his views in the
matter. The Department will maintain a
Jkt 226001
[Docket ID: DOD–2012–HA–0049]
RIN 0720–AB57
Civilian Health and Medical Program of
the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS)/
TRICARE: TRICARE Retail Pharmacy
Program
This proposed rule would
make several administrative changes to
the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits
Program regulations in order to conform
them more closely to the statute and to
clarify some procedures regarding the
operation of the uniform formulary.
Specifically, the proposed rule would:
conform the regulation to the statute
regarding point-of-service availability of
non-formulary drugs; clarify the process
for formulary placement of newly
approved drugs; streamline the process
for updating copayment requirements;
specify the method for applying the
statutory formula for maximum nonformulary drug copayments; and clarify
several other uniform formulary
practices. This rule is separate from, but
not inconsistent with, the legislative
proposal made by the Department to
implement portions of the President’s
Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 relating to
the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits
Program.
Written comments received at
the address indicated below by August
27, 2012 will be considered and
addressed in the final rule.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and/or RIN
number and title, by any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Federal Docket Management
System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive,
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
2nd floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09,
Alexandria, VA 22350–3100.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
Federal Register document. The general
policy for comments and other
submissions from members of the public
is to make these submissions available
for public viewing on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
32 CFR Part 199
SUMMARY:
PART 351—ANTIDUMPING AND
COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
13:20 Jun 25, 2012
Office of the Secretary
Office of the Secretary,
Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
For the reasons stated above, the
Department proposes to amend 19 CFR
part 351 as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AGENCY:
Dated: June 15, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
§ 351.313
public register of attorneys and
representatives suspended or barred
from practice. ‘‘Attorney’’ pursuant to
this subpart and ‘‘legal counsel’’ in
§ 351.303(g) have the same meaning.
‘‘Representative’’ pursuant to this
subpart and in § 351.303(g) has the same
meaning.
38019
Sfmt 4702
Rear
Admiral Thomas McGinnis, Chief,
Pharmacy Operations Directorate,
TRICARE Management Activity,
telephone 703–681–2890.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Executive Summary
1. Purpose of the Proposed Rule
The purpose of this proposed rule is
to make several administrative changes
to the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits
Program regulation to conform more
closely to the statute (10 U.S.C. 1074g)
and to clarify some procedures
regarding the uniform formulary.
The legal authority for this proposed
rule is 10 U.S.C. 1074g.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of
the Proposed Rule
a. It would conform the regulation to
the statute regarding the number of
points of service where non-formulary
drugs are required to be available. They
would be generally required only in the
mail order program.
b. It would clarify the process for
formulary placement of newly approved
drugs by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), giving the
Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee
up to 120 days to recommend tier
placement on the uniform formulary.
c. It would streamline the process for
updating cost sharing requirements by
eliminating the process step of a
recommendation from the P&T
Committee.
d. It would state there is no regulatory
requirement, just as there is no statutory
requirement, that copayment amounts
are the same for active duty dependents
as they are for retired members and their
dependents.
e. It would specify the method for
applying the current statutory formula
for maximum non-formulary drug
copayments, stating that they would be
calculated based on the average
government cost of all prescriptions,
other than generic drug prescriptions, in
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38017-38019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15381]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
19 CFR Part 351
[Docket No. 120613168-2168-01]
RIN 0625-AA92
Regulation Strengthening Accountability of Attorneys and Non-
Attorney Representatives Appearing Before the Department
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) proposes to amend
its regulations to add a subsection that strengthens the accountability
of attorneys and non-attorney representatives who appear in proceedings
before the Import Administration (IA). If this proposed rule is
implemented, the Department will continue its long-standing practice of
permitting attorneys and non-attorney representatives to appear before
IA. The proposed rule provides that both attorneys and non-attorney
representatives will be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct
based upon good cause. The proposed rule will assist the Department in
maintaining the integrity of its proceedings by deterring misconduct by
those who appear before it in antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing
duty (CVD) proceedings. The Department is requesting comments on the
proposed rule as discussed in more detail below.
DATES: The Department is requesting public comment on this proposed
rule. To be assured consideration, all comments must be received no
later than August 10, 2012. All comments should refer to RIN 0625-AA92.
ADDRESSES: To ensure the timely receipt and consideration of comments,
the Department requires all comments to be submitted on-line through
the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov, unless they do
not have access to the Internet. Comments to this notice should be
submitted under docket number ITA-2012-0003. To find this docket, enter
the docket number in the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' window at the
www.regulations.gov home page and click ``Search.'' The site will
provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with
that docket number. Find a reference to the proposed rule notice by
selecting ``Rule'' under ``Document Type'' on the search-results page,
and click on the link entitled ``Submit a Comment.'' The
www.regulations.gov Web site provides the option of making submissions
by filling in a comments field, or by attaching a document. The
International Trade Administration (ITA) prefers submissions to be
provided in an attached document. (For further information on using the
www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult the resources provided on
the Web site by clicking on the ``Help'' tab.)
Commenters who do not have access to the Internet may submit the
original and two copies of each set of comments by mail or hand
delivery/courier. All comments should be addressed to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1870, Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Department will consider all relevant comments regarding the
proposed rule that are received before the close of the comment period.
The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that
part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its
business proprietary nature or for any other reason. All comments
responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be
available for inspection at IA's Central Records Unit (Room 7046 of the
Herbert C. Hoover Building) or on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov.
Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion,
access to the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be
addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at
(202) 482-0866, email address: webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Lynch, Senior Counsel, Office
of the General Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel for Import
Administration, or Eric Greynolds, International Trade Program Manager,
Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-2879 or 202-482-
6071, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In August 2010, in support of the National
Export Initiative (NEI), the Department announced a number of proposals
to strengthen the administration of the U.S. AD and CVD laws. One
proposal addressed strengthening the accountability of attorneys and
non-attorneys who practice before the Department. This proposal
advances the purpose of the NEI by continuing rigorous enforcement of
U.S. trade laws.
For decades, consistent with IA's regulations, attorneys and non-
attorney representatives have practiced before IA without completing an
application or obtaining a license from the Department. The proposed
rule continues this long-standing practice and expressly identifies
persons who may appear before the agency, including both attorneys and
non-attorney representatives, and provides that such practitioners may
be required to demonstrate to the agency their acceptability to act as
practitioners. The proposed rule also (i) Establishes a good cause
standard for the application of sanctions for misconduct, (ii)
identifies possible sanctions for misconduct including suspension and
barring one from practice before the agency or a lesser sanction (that
may be public or private) at the Secretary's discretion, and (iii)
permits attorneys and representatives to have an opportunity to present
their views on the matter to the Department. If attorneys or
representatives are suspended or barred from practice before the
Department, the proposed rule provides that their names will appear on
a public register of suspended or barred attorneys and representatives.
[[Page 38018]]
The proposed rule is modeled after the U.S. International Trade
Commission's rule, 19 CFR 201.15, with some modifications. Certain of
the modifications are necessary to ensure that the proposed rule uses
the same terms already used by IA in its regulations or that two terms
have the same intended meaning. Another modification provides that the
Department will maintain a public registry of persons who are suspended
or barred from practice. The public nature of the registry will assist
the Department in its objective, i.e., maintaining the integrity of its
proceedings by deterring misconduct by attorneys and non-attorney
representatives who appear before it.
Related Rulemaking
In 2004, the Department published a notice of inquiry seeking
public comment about IA's certification requirements. See Certification
and Submission of False Statements to Import Administration During
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings--Notice of Inquiry, 69
FR 3562 (January 26, 2004) (2004 Notice of Inquiry) and Certification
and Submission of False Statements to Import Administration During
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings--Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Request for Comments, 69 FR 56738 (September 22, 2004).
In response, IA received public comment on whether it should strengthen
its certification process or promulgate regulations concerning those
who provide false statements or engage in fraudulent activity before
the Department. The certification process is currently the subject of a
separate rulemaking. See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011) (2011 Interim Final
Rule) and Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration
During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Supplemental
Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 (September 2, 2011). However, one of
the questions asked by the Department in 2004 was whether attorneys and
other professionals appearing before the Department should be subject
to regulation for misconduct before the Department. The Department
received comments in 2004 both supporting and opposing such regulation.
Those comments are not part of this proposed rulemaking and will not be
considered. As set forth above, the Department seeks public comment on
this 2012 proposed rule.
In promulgating the 2011 Interim Final Rule, the Department
included in the proposed revision to the certification regulation a
reference to 18 U.S.C. 1001, reminding individuals conducting business
with the Department and their representatives that U.S. law imposes
criminal sanctions upon parties who knowingly and willfully make
material false statements to the U.S. Government. In its response to
public comments, the Department stated that it intended to continue to
refer certification violations to offices better equipped to handle
such matters, such as the Department's Office of the Inspector General
(OIG). See 2011 Interim Final Rule, 76 FR at 2493-94. The promulgation
of this proposed rule strengthening the accountability of attorney and
non-attorney representatives is consistent with the 2011 Interim Final
Rule. The Department will refer instances of alleged certification
violations to the OIG. However, not every case of misconduct
constitutes a certification violation. Under this proposed rule, when
the Department either receives allegations that an attorney or non-
attorney representative appearing before it has engaged in misconduct
or inappropriate behavior, or is otherwise aware of such misconduct or
behavior, for good cause and to protect the integrity of its
proceedings, it will take disciplinary action against the offending
attorney or non-attorney representative. Attorneys and non-attorney
representatives who are found, after referral to the appropriate
office, to have engaged in a certification violation when appearing
before the Department will also be subject to disciplinary action under
this proposed rule. In all cases, disciplinary action may involve
reprimand (public or private), suspension or disbarment from appearing
before the Department.
Classification
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., the Chief Counsel for Regulation at the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business
Administration, that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal
basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed
rule. The factual basis for this certification is as follows.
The purpose of this rule is to strengthen the accountability of
attorneys and non-attorney representatives who appear before the
Department. The objective of the amendment is to implement measures
which continue to permit attorneys and non-attorneys to represent
persons appearing in proceedings before the Department while at the
same time providing that all such persons are subject to public
disciplinary action for misconduct before the Department.
The entities who would be impacted by this rule are attorneys and
non-attorney representatives who appear in proceedings before the
Import Administration. The Department cannot elaborate on how many of
the regulated entities would be considered small under the Small
Business Administration's size standards because it does not collect
such data. Although the Department does not collect data on attorneys
or non-attorney representatives appearing before it, historically,
firms have included major law firms in business in Washington, DC, New
York, and Chicago. We do not anticipate that a substantial number of
small entities would be impacted by this rule.
This proposed rule is expected to have very small economic impacts
to the regulated entities as it is procedural in nature. The rule
establishes a ``good cause'' standard to be applied to discipline
attorneys and non-attorney representatives appearing before the
Department, yet it does not alter the Department's long-standing
practice of allowing such representation. There is no application fee
to appear before the Department. There also are no monetary penalties
assessed if the Department determines that good cause exists for
sanctioning an attorney or non-attorney representative. The proposed
rule could be beneficial to small entities impacted by this rule
because it continues to allow parties to use non-attorney
representatives in Department proceedings, rather than requiring them
to retain an attorney, which might result in financial savings to the
small entities. However, if the Department suspends or disbars an
attorney or non-attorney representative as a result of this rule, it
may result in some economic impact, unquantifiable at this time, as
that person would not be able to practice before the Department. But,
the Department does not anticipate that a substantial number of small
entities would be impacted because it anticipates that attorneys and
non-attorney representatives appearing before it will conduct
themselves professionally and, historically, many of
[[Page 38019]]
the attorneys and non-attorney representatives who appear before the
Department are from larger firms. For these reasons, the Chief Counsel
for Regulation certified this rule would not result in a significant
economic impact to a substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
It has been determined that this rulemaking does not contain an
information collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that the proposed rulemaking is not
significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13132
It has been determined that the proposed rulemaking does not
contain federalism implications warranting the preparation of a
federalism assessment.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351
Administrative practice and procedure, Antidumping duties,
Countervailing duties.
Dated: June 15, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
For the reasons stated above, the Department proposes to amend 19
CFR part 351 as follows:
PART 351--ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
1. The authority citation for 19 CFR part 351 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1202 note; 19 U.S.C. 1303
note; 19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.; and 19 U.S.C. 3538.
2. Add Sec. 351.313 to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 351.313 Attorneys or representatives.
No register of attorneys or representatives who may practice before
the Department is maintained. No application for admission to practice
is required. Any person desiring to appear as attorney or
representative before the Department may be required to show to the
satisfaction of the Secretary his acceptability in that capacity. Any
attorney or representative practicing before the Department, or
desiring so to practice, may for good cause shown be suspended or
barred from practicing before the Department, or have imposed on him
such lesser sanctions (e.g., public or private reprimand) as the
Secretary deems appropriate, but only after he has been accorded an
opportunity to present his views in the matter. The Department will
maintain a public register of attorneys and representatives suspended
or barred from practice. ``Attorney'' pursuant to this subpart and
``legal counsel'' in Sec. 351.303(g) have the same meaning.
``Representative'' pursuant to this subpart and in Sec. 351.303(g) has
the same meaning.
[FR Doc. 2012-15381 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
