[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42678-42692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17045]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

19 CFR Part 351

RIN 0625-AA66
[Docket No.: 0612243022-3538-03]


Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration 
During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is amending 
the regulation which governs the certification of factual information 
submitted to the Department by a person or his or her representative 
during antidumping (``AD'') and countervailing duty (``CVD'') 
proceedings. The amended regulation is intended to strengthen the 
current certification requirements. For example, the amendment revises 
the certification in order to identify to which document the 
certification applies, to identify to which segment of an AD/CVD 
proceeding the certification applies, to identify who is making the 
certification, and to indicate the date on which the certification was 
made. In addition, the amendments are intended to ensure that parties 
and their counsel are aware of potential consequences for false 
certifications.

DATES: This Final Rule is effective August 16, 2013. This rule will 
apply to all investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed 
on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of AD/CVD proceedings 
initiated on or after August 16, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Cantu, Attorney, Office of 
Chief Counsel for Import Administration, Office of the General Counsel, 
or Myrna Lobo, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 6, Import 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-4618 or 202-482-2371, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 782(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), 
requires that any person providing factual information to the 
Department during an AD/CVD proceeding must certify the accuracy and 
completeness of such information. See 19 U.S.C. 1677m(b). Department 
regulations set forth the specific content requirements for such 
certifications. See 19 CFR 351.303(g) (2003). The Department recognized 
that the certification requirements and the language of the 
certification did not address certain important issues. For example, 
the certification language did not require the certifying official to 
specify the document or the proceeding for which the certification was 
submitted, or even the date on which the certification was signed.
    Therefore, on January 26, 2004, the Department published a notice 
of inquiry in the Federal Register, requesting comments regarding 
whether the certification requirements in place were sufficient to 
protect the integrity of Import Administration's (``IA'') 
administrative processes and, if not, whether the current certification 
statements should be amended or strengthened and, if so, how. See 
Certification and Submission of False Statements to Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 
69 FR

[[Page 42679]]

3562 (January 26, 2004) (``Notice of Inquiry'').
    Based on the comments received in response to the Notice of 
Inquiry, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register, 
proposing to amend the regulation governing the certification of 
factual information submitted to the Department. See Certification of 
Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
Request for Comment, 69 FR 56738 (September 22, 2004) (``Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking''). In that notice, the Department proposed 
specific boilerplate language for the certifications and requested 
comments on the proposed amendment. The Department received 16 
submissions in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking through 
December 7, 2004. The submissions included a wide variety of positions. 
Some commenters were opposed to the amendments, others supported the 
amendments, and many provided general recommendations for amending the 
certification requirements, as well as comments suggesting specific 
changes in the text of the certifications.
    On February 10, 2011, the Department published the interim final 
rule implementing changes to the certifications, addressing all of the 
prior comments, and providing parties another opportunity to comment. 
See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration 
During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Interim Final 
Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011) (``Interim Rule''). The Department 
decided to address all prior comments and implement the changes through 
an interim final rule because it had been several years since comments 
were last received on the proposed changes to the certification 
requirements and to afford parties an additional opportunity to comment 
on these regulations.
    The Department provided an opportunity for parties to file comments 
and rebuttal comments on the Interim Rule. See Interim Rule, 76 FR at 
7491. Because some parties encountered technical difficulties in filing 
comments electronically during the rebuttal comment period, the 
Department reopened the public comment period for the submission of 
rebuttal comments. See Interim Final Rule on Certification of Factual 
Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Reopening of Rebuttal Comment Period, 
76 FR 39770 (July 7, 2011).
    In total, the Department received 13 submissions of affirmative and 
rebuttal comments on the Interim Rule. Some of the comments discussed 
the appropriateness of requiring foreign governments and their 
officials to submit certifications as required by the Interim Rule. In 
order to analyze fully and address these comments and to obtain public 
views on this aspect of the Interim Rule, the Department published a 
supplement to the Interim Rule. This supplemental interim final rule 
sought public comment, and at the same time also allowed foreign 
governments the option to submit certifications in the format that was 
in use prior to the Interim Rule or in the format provided in the 
Interim Rule, until such time as a final rule is published. See 
Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Supplemental Interim 
Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 (September 2, 2011) (``Supplemental Rule''). 
The Department received four submissions in response to the 
Supplemental Rule. All comments responding to the Interim Rule and the 
Supplemental Rule received within the deadlines are available for 
review at Import Administration's Central Records Unit (Room 7046 of 
the Herbert C. Hoover Building), and the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.Regulations.gov, search Docket ITA-2010-0007.
    Below, the Department provides a summary, organized by subject, of 
all of the timely submitted comments on the Interim Rule and the 
Supplemental Rule, and the Department's responses. After analyzing and 
carefully considering all comments, as well as questions and issues 
raised by parties to AD and CVD proceedings since the Interim Rule 
became effective, the Department is further refining the rule and the 
certification language as discussed and set forth below.

Analysis of Comments

1. Dating of the Certification

    The certification format provided in the Interim Rule and the 
Supplemental Rule requires the certifier to identify the specific 
submission to which the certification pertains by title and date. See 
Interim Rule, Comment 4.
    One commenter argued that the Department should amend the 
certification language to eliminate the date of the specific 
submission, since frequently certifications will need to be signed 
before the specific date on which the filing will take place is known.
    Response: The Department is continuing to require that the 
certifications be dated; however, the Department is making some 
modification to the date required in the text of the certification to 
address the issues raised by the commenter regarding the difficulties 
encountered in completing the certification. The Department is 
providing some flexibility by allowing submissions to be identified in 
the certification by either the filing date or the due date. We find 
that requiring a date as an identifier distinguishes among the numerous 
submissions filed by a party that are similar in nature, such as 
supplemental questionnaire responses. Similarly, requiring a date as an 
identifier makes clear that documents which are filed in parts or in 
separate volumes, but respond to the same questionnaire, are part of 
the same submission. We also find that eliminating the date of the 
submission in the text of the certification would undermine our efforts 
to strengthen the regulation because it could permit a ``blank check'' 
certification that could simply be copied and attached to each 
supplemental questionnaire response. Requiring a date ensures that the 
signer is aware of the specific submission that he or she is certifying 
and for which he or she is responsible, while also providing a strong 
link between the certification and its submission. However, we 
recognize that submissions may be completed in advance of the filing 
date of the submission and, as a result, certifications could be 
obtained in advance and that the precise date on which the filing will 
take place may not be known at the time the certification is signed or 
could subsequently change for unanticipated reasons. For this reason, 
the Department will allow the identifier date to be either the due date 
of the submission or the actual date the submission is filed. 
Accordingly, we have modified the text of the company and government 
certifications to read as set out in the regulatory text of this rule.

2. Specification of Enforcement Procedures and Specification of 
Sanctions

    In the Interim Rule the Department did not specify the enforcement 
procedures that would be available in the event of a possible violation 
of 18 U.S.C. 1001, although some commenters had proposed that the 
Department do so. These proposals included suggestions such as 
establishing and specifying the procedures for conferring with the 
Department's Office of Inspector General and law enforcement agencies; 
formulating guidelines that permit the Department to maintain records 
to be used in any investigation

[[Page 42680]]

of misconduct; and drafting regulations for the investigation of 
factual information found to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, 
similar to those outlined for violations of administrative protective 
orders. The Department concluded in the Interim Rule that such 
procedures were not necessary because certification violations would 
continue to be referred to the appropriate offices, such as the Office 
of Inspector General, and that those offices would employ their normal 
procedures for handling possible violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001. See 
Interim Rule, Comment 6. The Department also declined to adopt specific 
sanctions because it does not have the authority or resources to create 
independent sanctions for false certifications and because sanctions 
will be determined by the offices to which the Department refers 
alleged certification violations under 18 U.S.C. 1001. See Interim 
Rule, Comment 7. Nevertheless, the Department reserved the right to 
protect its administrative process through appropriate steps in the 
event that a party is found to have violated 18 U.S.C. 1001, and also 
reserved the right to refer matters to bar associations when it 
determined that the circumstances warrant such a referral. Id.
    One commenter noted that by themselves, the changes to the language 
of the certifications will not be sufficient to deter some parties and 
their representatives from certifying factual submissions that they 
know or should know to be false. Accordingly, additional steps should 
be taken to ensure that those requirements are actually enforced and 
that any misconduct is reported to the appropriate government 
authorities. Furthermore, the commenter suggested that certification 
violations be referred to the appropriate bar association and contends 
that such referrals would be consistent with the Department's current 
practice under 19 CFR 354.18, which provides that the Department will 
refer an administrative protective order (APO) violation to the ethics 
panel or other disciplinary body of the appropriate bar or other 
professional associations if sanctions are imposed by the Department 
for the APO violation. The commenter takes issue with the Department's 
decision in the Interim Rule not to undertake this practice because it 
would result in excessive expenditures of Department resources. See 
Interim Rule, Comment 7. According to the commenter, the relevant bar 
association would use its own resources to investigate allegations of 
wrongdoing. Moreover, such referrals are consistent with the 
Department's decision in the Interim Rule that it would refer 
violations to other offices better equipped to handle such matters, and 
would prevent leaving violations of the certification requirement 
unsanctioned because the Department's Office of Inspector General or 
federal prosecutors are unwilling to pursue enforcement. As such, the 
commenter argues the certification should contain a statement that the 
representative is aware that any misconduct involving false 
certifications may be referred to the bar association. Finally, the 
commenter suggested that the Department consider prohibiting any 
representative found in violation of the certification requirements 
from appearing before the agency, consistent with the Department's 
regulation for APO violations under 19 CFR 354.3(a)(1). Another 
commenter agreed with these suggestions and urged the Department to 
outline the enforcement procedures.
    Other commenters state that the Interim Rule does not elaborate on 
the enforcement procedures the Department intends to follow in the 
event that it identifies misconduct, the factors that it will consider, 
or the standards that it will apply in determining whether a matter 
should be referred to the Department's Office of Inspector General or 
to the U.S. Department of Justice. These commenters also state that it 
is not apparent whether the Department's Office of Inspector General or 
the U.S. Department of Justice would require that a signatory make any 
particular inquiry as a basis for signing a certification.
    A different commenter provided its own published article that 
proposes licensing requirements for those practicing before Import 
Administration and the International Trade Commission (ITC). The 
proposed licensing requirement would provide the agencies with the 
ability to monitor and police the ethical behavior of the practitioners 
who appear before them, both attorneys and non-attorneys. The article 
recommends a new regulatory structure in the form of an agency-
developed and agency-administered licensing system applicable to those 
who practice before the agencies (attorneys and non-attorneys alike) to 
ensure ethical behavior. It further argues that representing clients 
before the U.S. trade agencies is engaging in the practice of law and 
addresses the inapplicability of the government agency exception to the 
unauthorized practice of law rule. Finally, the article submitted by 
this commenter recommends that the agencies promulgate appropriate 
regulations in the form of a licensing system, which would bring the 
agencies within the government agency exception.
    One commenter rejects this licensing proposal, stating that it is 
beyond the scope of the new certification requirements, and noting that 
the Department has already rejected the establishment of such 
enforcement procedures.
    Response: As explained in the Interim Rule, the amended 
certifications serve to clarify and strengthen already existing 
obligations regarding the submission of information to the Department. 
The consequences of false certifications were also addressed in the 
Interim Rule, which explained that such violations would be referred to 
the appropriate authorities who are better equipped to handle such 
matters. Therefore, we do not think it is necessary to provide 
comprehensive enforcement procedures or to elaborate on the factors 
that the Department will consider in determining whether a matter 
should be referred to the Department's Office of Inspector General or 
the U.S. Department of Justice. Further, the Department will, on a 
case-by-case basis, evaluate instances of possible material false 
statements or information as circumstances may differ from one case to 
another. See Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results, Partial Rescission 
of Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not 
To Revoke in Part, 77 FR 53856 (September 4, 2012), and accompanying 
IDM at Comment 3 (stating that the Department would consider the 
circumstances of the case and whether it was appropriate to refer the 
matter to the Office of Inspector General). We also are not addressing 
here the bases for which the Department's Office of Inspector General 
or the U.S. Department of Justice will handle such violations, as these 
authorities will follow their own procedures.
    With regard to referring matters to bar associations, although the 
Interim Rule indicated that it was not the Department's general 
practice to become involved in proceedings before bar associations 
regarding allegations of attorney misconduct, the Department reserved 
the right to refer such matters to bar associations. We will therefore 
consider on a case-by-case basis whether to refer allegations of 
attorney misconduct if it is determined that the circumstances warrant 
such a referral. Additionally, since the issuance of the Interim Rule, 
the Department has also

[[Page 42681]]

separately issued a final rule to strengthen its regulations with 
respect to the accountability of attorneys and non-attorney 
representatives. See Regulation Strengthening Accountability of 
Attorneys and Non-Attorney Representatives Appearing Before the 
Department (78 FR 22773, April 17, 2013) (Attorneys/Representatives 
Accountability Regulation). That final rule implemented a provision at 
19 CFR 351.313 that deals more specifically with attorney and non-
attorney representative misconduct, sets a good cause standard, and 
addresses possible sanctions, including reprimand, suspension, or 
disbarment of the representative from practice before the agency. Thus, 
the Department will take necessary steps as provided under that 
regulation.
    We have not considered the proposal of an agency-administered 
licensing system within the context of this rulemaking because the 
purpose of amending 19 CFR 351.303(g) is to clarify and strengthen 
already existing obligations. Additionally, the Department has 
previously recognized that although some agencies require certain non-
attorney practitioners to enroll before them (for instance, ATF), trade 
remedies is not a regulated industry warranting such enrollment. See 
Attorneys/Representatives Accountability Regulation, 78 FR at 22777. As 
such, we have determined that the development of a new licensing system 
is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

3. Requirement To Retain Signed Original Certifications

    The certification language provided in the Interim Rule and in the 
certification itself requires the signer to file a copy of the signed 
certification with the relevant submission to the Department and retain 
the original for a five-year period commencing with the filing of the 
submission. See Interim Rule, Comments 8 and 14.
    One commenter stated that the requirement to maintain the original 
certification for a five-year period creates an unnecessary record-
keeping burden and is impractical with respect to attorneys who do not 
work in a firm's Washington, DC office. Two commenters supported the 
use of an electronic signature, thereby allowing an electronically 
signed certification to serve as original certification. The use of 
verifiable electronic signatures would alleviate concerns about record-
keeping; would facilitate the Department's move toward electronic 
documentation; and would ensure and preserve the integrity of 
documents, thereby reducing the burden on companies and law firms. 
Furthermore, under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National 
Commerce Act (``ESign Act''), Public Law 106-229, 114 Stat. 464 (2000) 
(codified at 15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.), electronic records satisfy 
regulations or rules which require ``original'' documents. Thus, the 
Department should either allow electronically signed records or clarify 
that pursuant to the ESign Act, electronic records satisfy the proposed 
recordkeeping requirement of 19 CFR 351.303(g). According to these 
commenters, deeming electronically signed certifications to be original 
certifications would conform to current and evolving practice before 
federal courts and agencies.
    Another commenter noted that in order to account for the potential 
that litigation could exceed the five-year retention period, the 
Department's final rule should clarify that original certifications be 
retained for five years or until the entry of a final judgment in all 
appeals concerning that proceeding, whichever is greater.
    Another commenter responded that the Department should explain that 
this requirement does not detract from a company's authority to 
instruct its attorney that he or she should retain the certifications 
of the company, in the context of his or her representation of the 
company. This would clarify that it is not intended to constrain the 
scope of the representation activities that are agreed upon between the 
attorney and his or her client.
    Response: We have fully considered the feasibility of accepting 
electronic signatures and we are unable to do so for certification 
purposes at this time. Although the Department moved to an electronic 
system, the Import Administration Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS), for the filing of 
submissions as of August 5, 2011, this system is being implemented in 
phases and cannot currently handle electronic signatures for 
certification purposes. The only form of electronic signature currently 
compatible with IA ACCESS is the use of the filer's unique username and 
password combination as the filer's signature. While the unique 
username and passwords assigned to each IA ACCESS user allow for the 
filer of a submission to electronically sign the submission, the filer 
may only electronically sign the documents contained therein that would 
otherwise bear his or her own hand-written signature. In other words, 
the representative's electronic signature would not extend to the 
company/government official's certification that is included in the 
submission because the company/government official would not also be 
using his or her own unique IA ACCESS username and password.
    Second, we considered whether companies or government officials, 
otherwise represented by an attorney or non-attorney representative, 
could file their certification via IA ACCESS separately from the 
submission they would be certifying, but we have concluded that this 
option is unfeasible because it could lead to difficulties in tracking 
and linking certifications to submissions and also in ensuring the 
timely receipt of these certifications. We also considered the use of 
third-party service providers that authenticate signatures, which would 
allow the representative and his or her company/government client to 
sign their respective certifications electronically. However, because 
the Department has not fully implemented IA ACCESS, it is unable to 
determine at this time which third-party services that authenticate 
signatures will be compatible with its system.
    For all these reasons, the Department has decided that at this 
time, it cannot accept electronic signatures for certification purposes 
from any party and the Department will continue to require a 
handwritten signature on certifications and the retention by the 
certifier of the signed original certifications. We will evaluate the 
feasibility of electronic signatures as we implement future phases of 
IA ACCESS. The proper format and procedures for the submission of 
electronic documents are defined in the IA ACCESS Handbook on 
Electronic Filing Procedures (IA ACCESS Handbook). Therefore, should 
electronic signatures become a viable option, the Department will 
announce these changes on the IA ACCESS Web site at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and in the IA ACCESS Handbook. Until changes are 
announced in the IA ACCESS Handbook, the Department will continue to 
require a handwritten signature on certifications and the retention by 
the certifier of the signed original certifications. See also Comment 
18 below (further discussing electronic signatures).
    With regard to record-keeping requirements, the Interim Rule 
requires the original certification to be retained for a period of five 
years from the date of filing a submission. We have not modified that 
requirement to facilitate prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001 in the 
event that a party makes a

[[Page 42682]]

material false statement during the course of the proceeding. However, 
we have moved the language regarding retention from the text of the 
certification to the text of the regulation itself in order to make the 
record-keeping requirements explicit and to make the placement of this 
requirement more consistent with the placement of other procedural 
requirements in this rule (i.e., in the text of the regulation rather 
than the text of the certification). See also Comment 12b, infra. 
Further, we do not find it necessary to extend the record-keeping 
requirement beyond five years or until final judgment in cases of 
litigation because the statute of limitations to prosecute under 18 
U.S.C. 1001 expires at the end of five years and the original 
certifications could be gathered and maintained by the U.S. Government 
during the course of any litigation for which the original 
certifications are necessary.
    Original certifications must be maintained so that they can be 
physically examined, if requested, at verification and so that they can 
be obtained from the certifier because, for example, the Department is 
contemplating referring a possible certification violation to the 
Department's Office of Inspector General or the U.S. Department of 
Justice. As noted earlier, the Department will continue to consider the 
possibility of permitting electronic signatures and, should the 
acceptance of electronic signatures for certification purposes become 
feasible at a later date, maintenance of the original signed document 
may become redundant, and the Department may remove this record-keeping 
requirement at that time.
    In the Interim Rule, the Department requested that companies and 
governments, rather than legal counsel, maintain their own original 
certifications so as to avoid implicating attorney-client privilege. 
See Interim Rule at Comment 8. The Department has reconsidered the 
issue of who should maintain the original certification, and now 
clarifies that the record-keeping requirement only requires that a 
company or government, and its representative, retain the original 
certification for a five-year period following the filing of the 
submission. This requirement does not specify where, or the manner in 
which, the original certification should be maintained, nor does it 
prohibit a company or government from authorizing its representative to 
maintain the original certifications on behalf of its client. To make 
this requirement clearer, we have revised the language in the 
regulation, replacing the word ``retain'' with ``maintain.'' The 
company or government, and its representative, can develop their own 
policies and practices for maintaining the original certification. 
Notwithstanding the policy or practice selected by the company or 
government, the company or government must make the original available 
upon request by the Department at verification or, at any other time, 
upon request by the Department or any other appropriate agency, such as 
the Department's Office of Inspector General or the U.S. Department of 
Justice. However, it should be noted that the certifier is the person 
ultimately responsible for his/her own certification and must produce 
the certification upon the Department's request, regardless of the 
arrangements made to maintain the original certification.

4. Requirements To List on Certifications Other Individuals With 
Significant Responsibility for Preparation of Part or All of the 
Submission

    In the Interim Rule the Department did not adopt the proposal to 
include within the certification a list of all individuals with 
significant responsibility for preparing part or all of the submission. 
See Interim Rule, Comment 10.
    One commenter stated that including in the certification the 
identification of the individuals who had significant responsibility 
for compiling and submitting factual information or manipulating data 
would help to ensure that the submission does not omit important facts 
known or reasonably available to the party making the submission. This 
will ensure that the obligations of accuracy and completeness are taken 
seriously, and will be a useful check during any verification of the 
information. Furthermore, the mere listing of significant contributors 
is not likely to detract from the obligation held by the person who 
actually signs the certification.
    Two other commenters recommended that the Department eliminate 
ambiguity by requiring all organizations and individuals that were 
involved in the preparation and submission of factual information to 
file their own certification in order to hold those organizations and 
individuals accountable. As an example, this would include outside 
accounting or consulting firms that assisted a company or government in 
the preparation of a submission. This would prevent parties that are 
submitting inaccurate or incomplete information in their submissions 
from claiming that certifications listing only the company/government 
official were not misleading because they had relied on an outside 
party. One commenter added that this would give the certification 
process more transparency and increase the likelihood of ethical 
behavior and due diligence. The other commenter claims that this 
requirement would not be burdensome and would eliminate ambiguity.
    One of these commenters believes that the Department erred in not 
adopting a requirement that the certification list all individuals with 
``significant responsibility'' for preparing part or all of the 
submission in the Interim Rule and recommends that the Department adopt 
this requirement. According to the commenter, the Department vastly 
over-estimated the number of people who ``significantly'' contribute to 
a submission, which on most occasions, is probably an additional two or 
three people who actually contribute in a significant way. The other 
commenter also suggests requiring a certifying official to identify any 
outside parties who participated in the preparation or submission of 
factual information. Failure to enact this requirement would prevent 
the Department from holding fraudulent parties accountable, while 
requiring the identification of all parties involved in the preparation 
of a submission would ensure that they take greater care and act more 
ethically. This party claims that while the term ``significant 
responsibility'' is not clearly defined, the vagueness of the 
definition is more than outweighed by the value of a transparent 
process.
    One commenter agreed with the Department that the requirement to 
identify and list all persons with significant responsibility for 
compiling and submitting information in a submission is overly 
burdensome and unnecessary. The commenter argues that one company 
official should be held responsible for the information contained in 
the submission, and that this individual, along with the attorneys 
responsible for submitting the information, should be required to sign 
the certification. While the Department is correct to demand that an 
individual or individuals be designated as assuming responsibility for 
the accuracy of each submission, the commenter argues that it should be 
up to the company or government to make the determination as to which 
individual or individuals should assume that responsibility.
    Response: The Department provided its reasoning in the Interim Rule 
for not adopting a requirement that the

[[Page 42683]]

certification list all individuals with significant responsibility for 
preparing part or all of the submission. See Interim Rule at Comment 
10. Among the reasons are the ambiguity created regarding who is 
primarily responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the entire 
submission, the attendant requirement to define what constitutes 
``significant responsibility'' and ``part . . . of a submission,'' 
e.g., one piece of information, two pieces of data, and the additional 
administrative burden that would be created by such a requirement. 
Moreover, the mere listing of significant contributors without their 
signatures on the certification does not enhance the objective of the 
certification requirement, i.e., to ensure that the factual information 
contained in the submission is complete and accurate and that the 
person whose signature appears on the certification can be held 
responsible by the Department for the completeness and accuracy of the 
information in the submission. In addition, multiple company/government 
certifications or a list of all the persons responsible for preparing 
the submission would likely diminish accountability. It could be 
difficult to hold a person(s) responsible in the event that a material 
false statement had been made in the submission because that person 
could argue that any inaccuracies or incompleteness were attributable 
to another person listed on the certification or another person who 
also certified. See also Interim Rule, Comment 9.
    Further, the Department does not agree that it is appropriate to 
adopt a requirement that all organizations or outside accounting or 
consulting firms assisting a company or government in the preparation 
of a submission provide a certification. The parties to the proceeding 
before the Department are the parties that are accountable and 
responsible for the information submitted to the Department.

5. Requirement To Identify on the Certification Legal Counsel or 
Representatives That Supervised the Advising, Preparing, or Review of 
the Submission or Other Individuals With Significant Responsibility for 
Advising, Preparing, or Reviewing the Submission

    In the Interim Rule, the Department decided not to require 
representatives to list within the certification the other individuals 
with significant responsibility for advising, preparing, or reviewing 
part or all of the submission. See Interim Rule, Comment 15.
    One commenter argued that the Department should require all legal 
counsel involved in the preparation of factual information to file a 
certification. This would allow the Department to understand precisely 
who was involved in the preparation of the submission, and to act 
accordingly. Alternatively, the Department should require that legal 
counsel's certification identify all law firms or other representatives 
involved in the preparation of the submission. This would address the 
frequent use of foreign as well as U.S. attorneys in the preparation 
and submission of information, as well as instances involving multiple 
U.S. counsel in the preparation of submissions for parties.
    Another commenter agreed with this approach because it recognizes 
that complex submissions required by the Department require input from 
many sources. The commenter notes that a potential alternative to the 
Department's requirement is to adopt the ITC's practice of requiring a 
single certification that also allows for the identification of 
additional ``contact persons'' for different sections of the 
submission.
    Response: For the same reasons stated in Comment 4, supra, the 
Department is not adopting the proposal to require representatives to 
list within the certification the other individuals with significant 
responsibility for advising, preparing, or reviewing part or all of the 
submission. For a certification to be effective there must be a primary 
representative to hold accountable for the accuracy and completeness of 
the overall submission so certified. It is important that the 
information, as a whole, be evaluated by the representative for 
accuracy and completeness. Further, if there were several 
representatives certifying the same submission, it could be difficult 
for the Department to hold any one person responsible for the 
submission because that person could seek to attribute any inaccuracy 
or incompleteness to another certifier. Thus, we find that any benefits 
gained by knowing which particular portions of a submission were 
prepared or supervised by particular representative are outweighed by 
the loss of accountability for the submission as a whole if the 
Department were to permit multiple certifications in the usual 
circumstance.
    The Department recognizes that there are exceptional cases in which 
it will be necessary for more than one representative to certify a 
submission,\1\ such as submissions that are filed jointly by multiple 
law firms or representatives, on behalf of multiple interested parties. 
In such instances, the Department expects the representatives to work 
together to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the entire 
submission, rather than providing a certification that applies only to 
a specified portion of the submission.\2\ Further, in instances where a 
``lead'' interested party has been designated to certify on behalf of 
multiple interested parties,\3\ the Department will also consider the 
certification of the representative of the ``lead'' interested party 
and the representative of the party whose specific information is 
contained in the submission, to be sufficient for purposes of the 
representative certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In exceptional cases the Interim Rule permitted a very 
limited number of individuals to be responsible for the accuracy and 
completeness of the entire submission. See Interim Rule, Comment 15, 
footnote 4.
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ See Comment 21 infra, allowing a ``lead'' interested party 
to certify on behalf of multiple interested parties when the 
submission does not contain factual information that belongs to any 
particular interested party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Whether Representative Certifications Are ``Continuing in Effect''

    In the Interim Rule, the Department did not adopt the proposal 
requiring the signer to certify that he or she is aware that the 
certification is deemed to be continuing in effect, such that the 
signer must notify the Department in writing, if at any point during 
the segment of the proceeding he or she possesses knowledge or has 
reason to know of any material misrepresentation or omission of fact in 
the submission or in any previously certified information upon which 
the submission relied. See Interim Rule Comment 16; see also Interim 
Rule Comment 12.
    One commenter stated that the Department should amend its proposal 
to require the representative of a party to certify that he or she is 
aware that the certification is deemed to be continuing in effect. The 
signer of the certification should also be required to take appropriate 
remedial measures if at any point during the segment of the proceeding 
he or she possesses knowledge or has reason to know of any material 
misrepresentation or omission of fact in a previously certified 
submission. Although the Department has already noted that the 
obligation to report material misrepresentations or omissions of fact 
already exists, this commenter believes that the certification itself 
should include language that warns counsel to abide by this obligation.
    Response: The obligation to report material misrepresentations or 
omissions of fact already exists, as explained in the Interim Rule. See

[[Page 42684]]

Interim Rule, Comment 12. This requirement is implicit in the 
certification requirement found in section 782(b) of the Act and in the 
verification requirements found in section 782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. 
1677m(b) & (i); see also 19 CFR 351.307(b). Additionally, the 
Department noted that this obligation should be interpreted in a manner 
consistent with a representative's professional responsibilities. See 
Interim Rule, Comment 16 (discussing the DC Rules of Prof'l Conduct, R. 
4.1 prohibiting an attorney from knowingly making false statements to a 
third person in the course of representing a client; DC Rules of Prof'l 
Conduct, R. 3.3 prohibiting an attorney from offering evidence to a 
tribunal that the attorney knows is false); see also Attorneys/
Representatives Accountability Regulation discussed earlier in Comment 
2, supra. As such, we do not think it is necessary for the 
certification itself to include additional language to remind counsel 
of this obligation.

7. Requirement To Make ``An Inquiry Reasonable Under the 
Circumstances''

    In the Interim Rule the Department did not adopt the proposal 
requiring representatives to make an inquiry reasonable under the 
circumstances before certifying that the submission is accurate and 
complete. See Interim Rule, Comment 17.
    One commenter argued that the regulation should be amended to 
require that company officials and attorneys conduct ``an inquiry 
reasonable under the circumstances.'' For attorneys signing 
certifications, this would include the due diligence required by the 
rules of professional responsibility, such as Rule 3.3 of the ABA Model 
Rules of Professional Conduct. It is important to emphasize the 
attorney's duty in the certification in the same manner that the 
Interim Rule reminds signatories of the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 
1001. For company officials, who may not be bound by any professional 
rules of conduct, the certification should inform the official of the 
reasonable inquiry standard and that endorsing a certification 
indicates that the official is responsible for presenting the 
information, supervised the collection and presentation of the 
information, or exercised due diligence in reviewing the information 
presented through a review of company books and records beyond the 
information in the submitted document.
    Another commenter argues that, should the Department include this 
type of requirement, it should provide guidance in order to set 
expectations for what is required to meet the ``reasonable inquiry'' or 
``due diligence'' standard. The commenter suggests minimum standards. 
It should be expected that an attorney signing a certification will 
have examined worksheets, a sample of the original sources for the data 
included in a questionnaire response, and other submissions from the 
same company in other proceedings before the Department, the ITC, or 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Likewise, company officials, 
when certifying to the accuracy of information, should be held 
accountable for reading the submission and all supporting exhibits and 
attachments, and should be expected to possess knowledge of the 
underlying records from which the data were obtained. Another commenter 
agrees and suggests that the Department also outline the enforcement 
procedures it intends to follow in the event that it identifies 
misconduct related to certifications. Notifying the individuals that 
signed certifications of such procedures would deter false 
certifications.
    Another commenter recommended that the Department revert to its 
original proposal and require representatives to make an ``inquiry 
reasonable under the circumstances'' before certifying the submission, 
and argues that such a requirement would be in accordance with the 
ethical guidelines already required by bar associations for counsel. 
Adding this language to the regulations would not add a burden that is 
not already present for attorneys. According to this commenter, even 
when foreign lawyers or consultants assist in preparing submissions, 
attorneys admitted to practice in the United States have an ethical 
obligation to make reasonable inquiries, by providing some meaningful 
level of investigation and due diligence, in order to prohibit the 
misrepresentation of facts by others. A reasonable, diligent inquiry 
should, according to this commenter, include a duty to investigate, and 
an obligation to conduct some form of due diligence into the veracity 
of a client's facts before certifying to the truth of those facts. Such 
an inquiry should require some investigation beyond taking the client 
at his or her word. Without an inquiry or investigation, an attorney is 
merely certifying that a client conveyed a fact, and that there was no 
cause to question it, which results in a certification that lacks 
credibility. The Department must, according to the commenter, be able 
to distinguish between an affirmative misrepresentation and the 
negligent failure to investigate, and must make efforts to eliminate 
both. As it stands, the Interim Rule only deters intentional 
misrepresentations, therefore creating an incentive for attorneys to be 
negligent. In addition, the commenter argues that by not requiring a 
reasonable inquiry, the certification ``advantages'' non-attorney 
representatives who are not bound by legal ethical rules.
    One commenter supports the Department's rejection of the proposed 
requirement to make an ``inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,'' 
stating that difficulties can arise from the reasonable inquiry 
proposal and citing the Department's decision to reject similar 
proposals in the Interim Rule. See Interim Rule Comment 17. This 
commenter had previously pointed out that difficulties can arise from 
an ``inquiry reasonable under the circumstances'' as a result of 
language barriers, differing cultural and legal environments that 
reduce the ability of the U.S. attorney to verify data that the 
respondent company official has already certified as accurate and 
complete, and the fact that an attorney's ability to bring independent 
resources to the client's representation depends on the client's 
financial resources.
    Response: The Department is not amending the certification itself 
to require that company officials and attorneys conduct an ``inquiry 
reasonable under the circumstances.'' As explained in the Interim Rule, 
the correct standard to place on representatives in AD/CVD proceedings 
through the certification process is that which exists in the Act. 
According to section 782(b) of the Act, any person providing factual 
information to the Department must certify that the ``information is 
accurate and complete to the best of that person's knowledge.'' This 
standard necessarily incorporates some review or inquiry by the 
certifying official. Accordingly, it is not necessary to incorporate 
that requirement explicitly into the language of the regulation. The 
standard in the certification is intended to be read in conjunction 
with any ethical obligations that a representative would already have 
as a result of professional rules such as rules of professional 
conduct. See Interim Rule, Comment 16.

8. Requirement That All Factual Information Being Submitted Is 
Consistent With That Provided to Any Other Agencies of the U.S. 
Government

    Some commenters suggest that the company certification include 
language that the submission is consistent with information submitted 
to other U.S. Government agencies. This would require that counsel 
review the underlying company accounts and

[[Page 42685]]

records, and be held responsible for reviewing other submissions from 
the same company in other proceedings before the Department, the ITC, 
CBP, or other government agencies. One commenter added that counsel 
should be prepared to review submissions from other proceedings, or to 
other U.S. Government agencies, and ensure that later submissions are 
not inconsistent with previously certified documents.
    Response: We have not adopted the suggestion to include language in 
the certification to indicate that the factual information contained in 
the submission is consistent with information submitted to other U.S. 
Government agencies. The purpose of the Department's certification 
regulation is to ensure that the information submitted to the 
Department is ``accurate and complete'' to the best of the certifier's 
knowledge, as required by section 782(b) of the Act. While it is 
expected that information will be consistent across submissions made to 
other agencies, such submissions are governed by the regulations of 
those agencies and are outside the Department's authority. Generally, 
the Department does not have the resources to gather and compare 
submissions made before other government agencies to identify 
inconsistencies and the Department cannot reasonably request that 
another agency confirm that information submitted to it and the 
Department is consistent. However, if specific evidence is provided in 
a proceeding indicating that there is an inconsistency between 
information provided to the Department and information provided to 
another agency, the Department may investigate such inconsistencies.

9. Requirement That Parties Certify Information They Did Not Prepare

    One commenter argued that the Department should clarify that while 
certifications of information provided by or relating to a company's or 
government's own information should be certified by that party and its 
representative, a company or government is not in a position to certify 
the accuracy of another party's information. This is because 
submissions rebutting or commenting on the proprietary information 
filed by another party, such as questionnaire responses, often contain 
factual information that only the representative of the submitter can 
review under an APO. Therefore, a company or government should not be 
required to sign a certification for a submission addressing 
information that it did not supply and about which it has no knowledge. 
Only the representative that prepared the information should certify as 
to its accuracy.
    Another commenter further noted that representatives for 
petitioners frequently submit factual information that is drawn from 
research of publicly available sources or collected by market 
researchers in order to clarify, rebut, or correct an opposing party's 
business proprietary information (BPI), which is released only to the 
company's representatives under APO. In these instances, the commenter 
argues, it is neither useful nor appropriate for company or government 
officials to certify to the accuracy of such externally sourced 
information, as stated under the Interim Rule, because such officials 
have no role in preparing or supervising preparation of the submission 
of factual information that is not their own. The Interim Rule 
currently requires that company officials certify to the accuracy of 
information that the Department's APO rules prohibit them from viewing. 
Accordingly, the commenter suggests that the Interim Rule be amended to 
clarify that the certification requirement for company officials 
applies only to factual information generated by the company or its 
affiliates. Where factual information is compiled by the 
representative, the certification requirement should apply only to the 
representative, and not to the company or government that has no role 
in the compilation of the information.
    Another commenter elaborated further that only when a company has 
provided its own BPI should there be an obligation to submit any 
certification. This is pursuant to the Department's standard APO and 
its normal practice in situations where company officials do not have 
access to another company's BPI. Moreover, although the Department has 
already clarified that no certifications by either the representative 
or the company official are required when counsel is placing another 
party's information on the record, it should expand on this statement. 
The commenter also adds that the same should apply with respect to the 
submission of published materials, such as government publications, 
other published statistical data, audited financial statements, and 
other information found on the Internet or in printed publications, 
that are neither the party's nor the attorney's own.
    Response: The regulation, at 19 CFR 351.303(g), currently states 
that a person must file with each submission containing factual 
information the certification provided in paragraph (g)(1). In 
addition, if the person has legal counsel or another representative, 
the certification provided in paragraph (g)(2) must also be filed. 
During the course of a proceeding various types of information are 
submitted by parties, such as a party's own factual information, 
information collected from third parties or public sources, surrogate 
value information, or another party's business proprietary information. 
Since implementing the Interim Rule, numerous parties have raised 
questions with respect to third party information and/or publicly 
obtained information and whether certifications are or should be 
required for such submissions. Since the implementation of the Interim 
Rule, the Department has also issued a final rule amending 19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21), which defines the term ``factual information,'' and 19 
CFR 351.301, which establishes time limits for filing factual 
information. See Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for 
Submission of Factual Information, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013) 
(Factual Information Rule). This rule identifies five categories of 
factual information and requires that the submitter specify under which 
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted. 
Id., 78 FR at 21247. Thus, a submission that contains factual 
information, as defined by the Factual Information Rule, must be 
certified by the company/government and its legal counsel or 
representative, if any. Section 351.102(b)(21)(iii) of the regulation 
specifies that ``factual information'' includes ``{p{time} ublicly 
available information submitted to value factors under Sec.  351.408(c) 
or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under Sec.  351.511(a)(2), 
or, to rebut, clarify, or correct such publicly available information 
submitted by any other interested party . . . .'' Id., 78 FR at 21254. 
We note that surrogate value information falls clearly within the 
definition of factual information under the Factual Information Rule 
and therefore must be certified. The purpose of requiring company/
government certifications even with submissions of factual information 
that have been obtained from public sources or compiled by a 
representative is that the company/government must take ultimate 
responsibility for the information that has been provided to the 
Department on its behalf. In doing so, it should be recognized that the 
signer is certifying to the ``best of {his/her{time}  knowledge,'' as 
underscored by the language in the certification. Requiring company/
government certifications for submissions containing third party public 
information, or information

[[Page 42686]]

compiled by a representative, also prevents parties from submitting 
information that they know may contain inaccurate facts or which the 
certifier knows has been superseded by revised information.
    With regard to submissions containing another party's business 
proprietary information and to which a company/government has no access 
under APO regulations, we recognize the difficulties faced by parties 
in providing certifications. To eliminate ambiguity about what 
information the party is certifying in such submissions, the Department 
will require that the company/government certifications for such 
submissions be included in the public version of the document. We will 
not require that the company/government certifications be included in 
business proprietary documents filed under the one-day lag rule or the 
final business proprietary document involving another party's BPI. 
Although the public version of such documents would contain blanks or 
ranged data in place of the proprietary information, in certifying to 
the ``best of {its{time}  knowledge,'' the company/government is 
certifying only the public information contained therein, and is 
informing the Department that it is aware of the submission filed on 
its behalf.
    Furthermore, the Department will require that submissions 
containing both a company/government's own information and third party 
business proprietary information be certified. However, because we 
recognize that a company may only be able to certify the public 
information and its own business proprietary information that it has 
provided, we have modified the text of the certification to make clear 
that a party is certifying only all of the public and all of its own 
business proprietary information that it provides to the Department. 
When a submission contains both a company/government's own information 
and third party business proprietary information, the company/
government certification must be included in the public version of the 
document. The company/government official's certification will serve to 
certify the accuracy and completeness of its own BPI and the public 
information contained in the submission because the Department 
considers the proprietary document and corresponding public version to 
constitute a single submission, see infra Comment 15. Accordingly, we 
have modified the text of the company and government certifications in 
19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) to read as set out in the regulatory text of this 
rule.
    The counsel or representative's certification must be included in 
all versions of the document, i.e., the public version, the final 
business proprietary document, and the one-day lag version. The 
counsel/representative does not need a newly dated certification in 
instances where a final proprietary document is submitted after a one-
day lag version is filed; the same certification can be included in the 
final business proprietary document and the corresponding public 
version.
    In the Interim Rule, the Department provided a limited exception to 
the counsel/representative certification requirement, stating that 
``{if{time} , however, counsel is placing another party's information 
on the record, no certification is required.'' Contrary to the 
arguments made by some of the commenters, this limited exception does 
not pertain to all third party information, but rather only to 
instances in which counsel or the representative moves third party 
information from the record of one segment of a proceeding to the 
record of another segment. See Interim Rule, Comment 16 and footnote 3. 
However, in order to comply with the legal requirement in section 
782(b) of the Act that all factual information is certified by the 
person providing the information to the Department, to avoid confusion, 
and to remain consistent with the Department's definition of factual 
information as provided in the Factual Information Rule, the Department 
is removing this exception. Therefore, all submissions containing 
factual information must be certified, including submissions containing 
information being moved from the record of one segment of a proceeding 
to the record of another segment.

10. Applicability of Certification Rule to Procedural Submissions

    One commenter argues that company and attorney certifications for 
extension requests and other similar procedural matters should not be 
required because such submissions do not constitute the submission of 
factual information. According to this commenter, requiring company and 
attorney certifications for procedural submissions, such as routine 
requests to extend submission due dates, fails to advance the 
objectives of the certification requirement. The Department should 
expressly disclaim this requirement. Whatever factual information may 
be referenced in extension requests does not constitute the submission 
of factual information with respect to the Department's consideration 
of whether dumping or subsidization is taking place, and the Department 
does not rely on such submissions in making final determinations or in 
issuing the results of administrative reviews.
    Response: After considering the comments, the burden on parties to 
complete and file certifications, and other aspects of this issue, the 
Department has decided to create a narrow exception to the 
certification requirement for procedural submissions. Some examples of 
procedural submissions are: Requests for extension of time limits for 
questionnaire responses or other submissions, hearing requests, 
requests for review, letters of appearance, corrections to a previous 
submission that has been certified (as these will be deemed to be 
covered by the certification included in the earlier submission to 
which they belong), requests to extend preliminary and final 
determinations/results, requests for verification, requests for 
alignment with a parallel proceeding, and many APO filings.\4\ Some 
examples of non-procedural submissions are: questionnaire responses, 
deficiency comments, surrogate value information, and other factual 
information placed on the record. To the extent that a factual 
submission also is procedural in nature, e.g., a questionnaire response 
that also contains a request to extend a final determination, a 
certification is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Comment 22 infra (discussing APO filings that are 
procedural in nature).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While procedural submissions do contain factual information (e.g., 
the reason the company or attorney/representative needs an extension of 
time to submit a questionnaire response), we agree that such 
information is not relevant to our analysis of dumping or 
subsidization, and could reasonably be considered outside the ambit of 
factual information necessary for certification purposes. The 
Department has also adopted this exemption to lessen the administrative 
burden on both the parties and the Department that results from the 
certification process. For example, in the preamble to the APO 
Procedures regulation we stated that the certification requirements 
would apply to letters of appearance. See Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO 
Procedures, 73 FR 3634, 3636-37 (January 22, 2008) (``APO 
Procedures''). In this final rule, we have determined that the 
certification requirements will only apply to submissions of factual 
information. Because letters of appearance are primarily procedural in 
nature and are not factual information as defined in 19

[[Page 42687]]

CFR 351.102(b)(21) and the Factual Information Rule, the certification 
requirements will not apply to letters of appearance. However, to the 
extent that the Department requires additional factual information to 
substantiate an interested party's status, a certification may be 
required.

11. Frequently Asked Questions

    Because these new certification requirements will be administered 
by different Department personnel in different cases, there will likely 
be questions about the application of the certification requirements in 
various contexts. In order to ensure consistency, one commenter 
requested that the Department create a page on its Web site to post 
frequently asked questions (``FAQs'') and answers.
    Response: The Department will develop a list of frequently asked 
questions and answers, and post it on Import Administration's Web site 
at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/tlei/index.html.

12. Government Certification

    The Interim Rule required all company and foreign governments 
participating in AD/CVD proceedings to provide certifications with 
submissions of factual information. See Interim Rule, Comment 13. 
Because some comments received in response to the Interim Rule 
contested the appropriateness of requiring foreign governments and 
their officials to submit certifications that included a reference to 
criminal sanctions under U.S. law, the Department issued the 
Supplemental Rule in September 2011. The Supplemental Rule allowed 
foreign governments the option of submitting certifications in either 
the format that was in use prior to the effective date of the Interim 
Rule, which does not contain reference to U.S. criminal law, or in the 
format provided in the Interim Rule, until such time as the comments 
were analyzed and a final rule was published. Further, in the 
Supplemental Rule, the Department also invited public comment on the 
appropriateness of requiring foreign governments to submit the 
certifications provided for in the Interim Rule, which are summarized 
and responded to immediately below. See Supplemental Rule.

12a. Reference to U.S. Criminal Law (18 U.S.C. 1001)

    One commenter stated that the Department should re-evaluate the 
language contained in the certification and determine whether it is 
appropriate to require foreign government officials to sign a 
certification that says that they may be held personally liable and 
subject to criminal sanctions. The commenter argued that this 
certification language is not appropriate for foreign government 
officials, and noted that the Department should be concerned that other 
governments may impose similar requirements on U.S. Government 
officials.
    Another commenter has strongly opposed any changes to the 
Department's certification requirements as they apply to foreign 
governments and foreign government officials. According to this 
commenter, the Department's longstanding certification requirements are 
sufficient to allay any concerns that the Department may have regarding 
the veracity of information that is submitted to it. The commenter adds 
that no justification exists for concluding that those certification 
requirements are insufficient because the Department has not 
demonstrated the existence of significant or recurring problems 
involving certifications that underlie the Department's proposed and 
interim rule changes, particularly with regard to any submissions made 
by foreign governments. Further, the commenter contends that the 
Department's longstanding certification requirements and verification 
process should be sufficient to ensure that the information is reliable 
because they allow the Department to impose a remedy, in response to 
behavior which may be improper, in the form of adverse inferences in 
the use of facts available, which can result in serious consequences 
for respondents in investigations.
    Two commenters have argued that it is a settled principle of 
international law that sovereign nations are independent and equal and 
are not subject to the jurisdiction and imposition of penalties, 
criminal or civil, by another sovereign nation. Further, they argue 
that international law recognizes that individual officials of 
sovereign governments, acting in their official capacities in 
performing acts attributable to that foreign sovereign government, are 
immune from suit or criminal prosecution for acts they perform as 
representatives of their governments. According to these commenters, 
this is an undisputed principle of customary international law and the 
law of nations based upon core aspects of sovereignty applicable in 
common law, civil law and other judicial systems, and is reflected in 
the primary international agreements among sovereign nations, including 
the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States 
and Their Property. They also assert that these international 
principles are also reflected in U.S. law under the Foreign Sovereign 
Immunities Act (FSIA) (codified, in part, at 28 U.S.C. 1602-1611), and 
in U.S. common law, which recognizes that foreign government officials 
are entitled to immunity when they perform acts as the representatives 
of their governments and those actions are attributable to the foreign 
state, including instances when a foreign government official signs a 
document in the name of the foreign government. As such, both these 
commenters object to the Department's proposal to include language in 
government certifications that refers to additional purported legal 
penalties or liability or includes any reference to 18 U.S.C. 1001.
    One of the commenters stated that it is inappropriate and 
unacceptable for the Department to impose on foreign governments a 
requirement that it certify to obligations and potential liability from 
which foreign governments and their officials are immune. According to 
the commenter, a government should be presumed to provide accurate 
information in good faith, thereby making the additional provisions and 
assurances that apply to certifications by governments entirely 
unnecessary. The commenter adds that the relevant WTO agreements, under 
Article 12.7 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
(``SCM Agreement''), already provide the consequences when parties fail 
to comply with member countries' requests for information. The 
commenter argues that the Department's new certification requirements, 
as they apply to governments, exceed the U.S. Government's authority, 
as a signatory to the SCM Agreement, to impose consequences for a 
government's failure to provide necessary factual information within a 
reasonable period of time. The commenter notes that verifications 
carried out by the Department, consistent with its authority under 
Articles 12.5 and 12.6 of the SCM Agreement, are sufficient to ensure 
the reliability of the information supplied by interested parties. 
Further, the commenter states that the Department's authority to apply 
adverse facts available, consistent with Article 12.7 of the SCM 
Agreement, is the instrument for responding to any deficiencies found 
in the accuracy of any information submitted.
    The commenter further argues that the Department's proposed 
additional certification requirements go beyond the authority granted 
by the U.S. Congress in the applicable statutory provision first 
established by Section 1331 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness 
Act of 1988, and now section 782(b) of

[[Page 42688]]

the Act. The commenter argues that the Department's attempt to expand 
the certification obligation violates the specific requirements of the 
U.S. statute and clear Congressional intent. The commenter notes that 
its own certification requirements have proved to be reasonable, 
effective, and fully consistent with WTO Member obligations under the 
SCM Agreement and applicable international law, even though the 
commenter considers that requirement to be less onerous than either the 
one proposed under the Interim Rule or the previous longstanding U.S. 
certification requirements.
    Another commenter objected to these arguments, stating that the 
principles of foreign sovereign immunity do not compel or warrant the 
withdrawal of the Department's revised certifications for foreign 
government officials, as the revised certification does not trigger any 
infraction of foreign sovereign immunity. Rather, the commenter asserts 
that the Department's proposed certification for foreign government 
officials does not expand, but only clarifies, the legal obligations 
that already exist under the Act, and the Department's regulations, 
ensuring that the importance of the accuracy of submitted factual 
information is explicitly conveyed in detail to parties. The commenter 
states that the proposed certification language, which specifies that 
the certifier is aware of criminal sanctions under U.S. law, does not 
address whether or how violations would be adjudicated or enforced and 
thus does not change any of the legal rights or arguments that may 
apply when a foreign government official signs the certification. As 
such, argues the commenter, the new certification for foreign 
government officials does not infringe upon any foreign government 
official's sovereign immunity.
    This commenter also disagreed with the interpretation of certain 
SCM Agreement provisions, concluding that WTO member states have ceded 
their sovereignty regarding a fellow member state's ability to gather 
``accurate'' and ``necessary'' information within the meaning of 
Articles 12.7 and 12.5 of the SCM Agreement. The commenter states that 
these provisions of the SCM Agreement allow the member states some 
leeway to ensure the ``accuracy'' of information submitted by foreign 
government officials. The commenter concludes that implementing a 
certification requirement for foreign government officials is a valid 
attempt to secure ``accurate'' information, as called for in Article 
12.5 of the SCM Agreement.
    This commenter also considers comments made by other parties 
regarding jurisdiction of foreign government officials to be 
incomplete. The commenter argues that the notion of foreign sovereign 
immunity is not absolute and, for instance, where a foreign government 
is confronted with a claim arising out of activities (such as 
commercial transactions) of the kind that are conducted by private 
persons, such immunity may not be available. This commenter also 
asserts that the U.N. Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States 
and Their Properties, which, though not yet entered into force, 
essentially codifies customary international law, also describes 
several exceptions to the general rule of a foreign state's immunity 
from a forum state's jurisdiction to adjudicate. The commenter also 
argues that there are exceptions to the FSIA's general rule that 
foreign states shall be immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
    Another commenter argues that the Department should require foreign 
governments and their officials to certify the accuracy of information 
presented to the Department to the same extent, and in the same manner, 
that is required of company officials. In a CVD investigation, the 
commenter argues, foreign governments acting as respondents often 
submit information that is not available publicly, yet is necessary to 
the investigation, and this information is provided equal weight as 
factual information provided by companies in the Department's analysis. 
Even if sovereign immunity were to apply in some instances, the 
commenter argues that it should not excuse foreign government officials 
from certifying the accuracy of their statements to the Department. The 
commenter contends that in promulgating its final rule the Department 
should require the same certification for both company and foreign 
government officials.
    Response: The Department disagrees that the requirements provided 
for in the government certification, as revised in the Interim Rule, 
exceed the authority granted by section 782(b) of the Act. In requiring 
government officials to file certifications, the Department is 
complying with section 782(b) of the Act, which requires that all 
persons submitting information on behalf of an interested party in an 
AD or CVD proceeding must certify that the information is accurate and 
complete to the best of that person's knowledge. As we explained in the 
Interim Rule, the amendments to the certifications were consistent with 
the legal obligations set out in the Act, served to identify more 
specifically the document to which a certification applies, and 
included a warning to make plain the consequences that already exist in 
the law for providing false statements, including false certifications. 
Moreover, the consequences for making false statements to the U.S. 
Government were always implicit under the previous certification 
requirement, and exist regardless of whether the Department's 
certifications explicitly cite to 18 U.S.C. 1001. See Interim Rule, 76 
FR at 7493.
    Nevertheless, in light of the concerns expressed by commenters, and 
after consulting with officials at the U.S. Department of State, the 
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the U.S. Department of 
Justice, the Department has made changes to its revised certification 
and created a government-specific certification that does not include a 
reference to U.S. criminal law. The Department will, however, continue 
to require that foreign governments and their officials sign a 
certification that identifies more specifically the document to which 
the certification applies. The changes to the certification are 
intended to allay concerns over potential or inadvertent waiver of 
sovereign immunity, while contributing to the goal of strengthening the 
certifications in order to encourage accurate and complete submissions. 
We note that the changes to the government certification are not 
intended to change any of the potentially applicable consequences or 
penalties for providing false statements to the U.S. Government that 
already exist in the law. Further, the changes to the government 
certification are not intended to alter any of the legal provisions or 
any of the potentially applicable legal defenses (e.g., foreign 
sovereign immunity) that may apply when a foreign government official 
signs a certification for purposes of the Department's AD and CVD 
proceedings.

12b. Recordkeeping Requirements

    One commenter finds the requirement that foreign governments 
maintain original certifications to be objectionable and burdensome 
based on the principles of foreign sovereign immunity, and doubts 
whether such a requirement could serve any legitimate purpose. Another 
commenter contends that a requirement that foreign governments maintain 
original certifications for a period of five years is neither 
problematic for foreign government officials nor in violation of a 
country's foreign sovereign immunity.
    Response: We have not changed our position on requiring foreign 
governments to maintain original

[[Page 42689]]

certifications for a period of five years from the filing of the 
document. This requirement is consistent with the requirement that 
companies, attorneys or representatives maintain the original 
certifications for a five-year period. See Comment 3, supra. However, 
we have moved this language from the text of the certification to the 
text of the regulation itself in order to make the recordkeeping 
requirements explicit and to make the placement of this requirement 
more consistent with the placement of other procedural requirements in 
this rule. We have also replaced the word ``retain'' with ``maintain'' 
in the text of the regulation, in order to make clearer that a foreign 
government, and its representative, can develop their own policies and 
practices for maintaining the original certification, so long as the 
original is readily available upon request by the Department, or 
another appropriate agency such as the Department's Office of Inspector 
General or the U.S. Department of Justice. However, it should be noted 
that the government of the certifying foreign government official is 
ultimately responsible for its official's certification and must 
produce the certifications upon the Department's request, regardless of 
the arrangements made to maintain the original certification.
    Further, in an attempt to reduce the recordkeeping burden, the 
Department looked into the possibility of maintaining electronic copies 
of certifications instead of the original signed documents. However, 
until the Department has a system in place to accept electronic 
signatures, the original signed document must be maintained. The 
Department may modify the regulation at a later date to remove the 
recordkeeping requirement should electronic signatures become 
acceptable for use with the Department's electronic filing system. See 
Comment 3, supra.

Other Issues

    Since the Interim Rule became effective, the public has raised a 
number of questions and administrative issues with respect to various 
aspects of certifications in the context of ongoing AD and CVD 
proceedings. The Department provides clarification and guidance on 
these issues below:

13. What Constitutes Factual Information

    The definition of factual information is provided in 19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21). The Department has amended the definition of factual 
information in the recently published Factual Information Rule. The 
regulation identifies five categories of factual information. Further, 
that regulation requires any person, when submitting factual 
information, to specify under which subsection of section 
351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted. See id., 78 FR at 
21247. Therefore, submissions identified as containing factual 
information, as defined by the Factual Information Rule and 19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21), must include the required certifications.

14. Old Versus New Factual Information

    The Act requires that any person providing factual information to 
the Department certify the accuracy and completeness of that 
information. The Act does not distinguish between factual information 
previously submitted to the Department (i.e., ``old'') or factual 
information submitted for the first time (i.e., ``new''). See section 
782(b) of the Act. Further, it would be an additional burden on parties 
as well as the Department to assess the content of each submission to 
determine whether the submission contained ``old'' or ``new'' factual 
information. The Department will require certifications for information 
deemed to be ``factual information'' under 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), 
regardless of whether it was previously submitted.

15. What Constitutes a Submission

    For certification purposes, a ``submission'' is a document and/or 
data, whether comprised of a single part or several parts, that is 
identified by a single title and date, and which is accompanied by a 
certification which identifies such document. For certification 
purposes, the proprietary document and its corresponding public version 
constitute a single ``submission.'' The Department will deem missing 
pages, inadvertent omissions or errata filed within a reasonable period 
of time of the original submission to be covered by the 
certification(s) of the original submission to which these pages 
pertain so long as the party clearly identifies the submission to which 
such information belongs.

16. Date of Signature on Certification

    Some parties have inquired about whether the date of signature, 
i.e., the date the certification is signed, must be the same as the 
date on which the submission is filed or the date on the cover letter 
of the submission. The Department clarifies that the date of signature 
must be the actual date on which the person signs the certification, 
regardless of the filing date or the due date of the submission. The 
Department recognizes that company/government certifications will 
likely be signed prior to the date of filing. Therefore, it is not 
required that the date of signature match any other date. See also 
Comment 1 supra.

17. What Constitutes a Signature

    Since implementing the Interim Rule, questions have arisen 
regarding what is an acceptable signature. The Department clarifies 
that the signature should be signed in ink and be in the certifier's 
own handwriting. Governments or entities that use a seal, emblem or 
stamp may continue to do so. However, the use of such devices should be 
in addition to the handwritten signature of the certifier and not as a 
substitute for the signature. Further, the certifier may sign in his or 
her own language, with the expectation, as articulated in the 
certification itself, that the certifier understands and accepts the 
obligations expressed therein.

18. Electronic Signatures

    The Department is unable to permit electronic signatures at the 
present time, as explained in Comment 3, supra. A scanned copy of a 
signature, regardless of its format, does not constitute a signature 
for certification purposes as it could allow for manipulation of the 
certification process because, for example, persons other than the 
certifying official may have access to the data file with the signature 
and may simply attach the signature to the submission. This could allow 
company officials to claim that they are not responsible for false 
statements or omissions in a submission because they did not sign the 
certification or authorize the use of their scanned signature. The 
Department will continue to evaluate the feasibility of accepting 
electronic signatures within the parameters of IA ACCESS. Should the 
Department identify an electronic signature process that is compatible 
with IA ACCESS, and adopt such a process, the Department will announce 
this change on the IA ACCESS Web site at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and 
in the IA ACCESS Handbook. Until such time, a certifier must sign in 
the certifier's own handwriting and maintain the original certification 
for a five-year period from the date of filing. The company/government 
may provide a copy of the certification to legal counsel/representative 
for purposes of filing the submission with the Department.

19. Who Can Certify for a Company

    As stated in the certification template, the certifier is a person 
``currently

[[Page 42690]]

employed by'' the company. For purposes of the certification 
requirement, the Department considers ``employed by'' to mean a person 
performing work under an employer-employee relationship. An 
``employee'' is a person in the service of another where the employer 
has the power or right to control and direct the employee with respect 
to what work will be done and how it will be done, and the employee 
receives payment or other compensation for services from the employer. 
In this regard, an ``employee'' of the party submitting factual 
information is to be distinguished from an independent contractor(s) or 
agent(s) of the party. The certifier(s) must be employed by the party 
submitting the factual information at the time the submission is made 
to the Department and the certifier(s) must have prepared or supervised 
the preparation of the submission. The Department may require proof of 
employment from the employer. See Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising 
Corp. v. United States, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1317, 1321 (CIT 2011) (quoting 
Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Dep't 
Commerce July 26, 2011) (Consol. Court No. 09-00524)) (discussing in 
more detail the requirement that an employee certify submissions).
    In instances where the person that prepared or otherwise supervised 
the preparation of a submission is unable to certify due to an 
extenuating circumstance, the Department may allow, on a case-by-case 
basis, this responsibility to be assumed by another official in the 
company, government, or firm. The company/government/firm must explain 
such circumstances in its cover letter to the submission indicating the 
reasons why the person that prepared or otherwise supervised the 
preparation of a submission is unable to certify the specific 
submission.

20. Case and Rebuttal Briefs

    We will not require certification for case and rebuttal briefs, as 
these documents are limited, consistent with 19 CFR 351.309, to written 
arguments based on submissions containing factual information that 
would already have been accompanied by the appropriate certifications.

21. Allowing One Interested Party To Certify on Behalf of Other 
Interested Parties When Counsel/Representative Represents Several 
Interested Parties in a Proceeding

    At times, several interested parties are represented by a single 
law firm/representative in a proceeding. Some law firms/representatives 
have expressed concern about the requirement of obtaining 
certifications from each of the interested parties they represent 
whenever a submission is filed, stating that it impedes the filing 
process, particularly in time-sensitive filings. Recognizing that it 
could be cumbersome for counsel/representative to obtain certifications 
from each of the interested parties it represents, the Department has 
decided to allow one interested party to certify on behalf of all the 
interested parties represented by the same counsel/representative, 
provided that all of the interested parties agree in writing to such an 
arrangement. If all parties are in agreement, the designated counsel/
representative must file an initial letter identifying the ``lead'' 
party who will certify on behalf of all of the other interested 
parties. In addition, this initial letter must contain certifications 
from each of the parties that will be represented. We note that a 
union, association, or coalition (i.e., interested parties within the 
meaning of section 771(9) (D), (E), (F) or (G) of the Act) is not 
required to provide with the initial letter additional certifications 
from their constituent members, because the union, association, or 
coalition itself is the interested party. Further, in subsequent 
filings during a proceeding, the Department will not accept a 
certification solely from the ``lead'' party if the submission contains 
any information that belongs to another of the member interested 
parties. In such instances, both the lead party and the party(ies) 
whose information is contained in the submission must certify the 
information by including certifications in the public version of the 
document. See Comment 9, supra, with regard to submissions containing 
several parties' BPI. Similarly, if a union, association, or coalition 
files a submission containing information that belongs to any of its 
constituent members or provides information in a submission on a 
disaggregated basis, then those individual constituent members must 
also certify the submission by including a certification in the public 
version of the document.
    Where there is more than one representative/law firm representing 
multiple parties, the representative certifications must be from the 
``lead'' interested party's representative and the representative of 
the party whose specific information is contained in the submission. 
See Comment 5 supra, with regard to multiple law firms.

22. APO Applications and Other APO-Related Administrative Filings

    An APO application contains a certification within the application 
itself and thus does not require an additional representative 
certification pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(g). Other APO-related filings, 
such as certifications of destruction, requests for removal of 
authorized applicants from the APO service list, disposition and 
transfer of documents and address changes, are more procedural in 
nature and thus also do not require certification. See Comment 10 supra 
(explaining that procedural submissions do not require a 
certification).

23. Handling of Deficiencies in Certifications

    If the Department determines that a certification contains 
inaccuracies or deficiencies, it will usually provide two business days 
from the time the Department notifies the party for the party to 
correct and resubmit the certification. This time limit is consistent 
with other regulations, such as 19 CFR 351.304(d), for nonconforming 
submissions.

24. Representative Certifications and Designation as ``Counsel'' or 
``Representative''

    Since implementing the Interim Rule, questions have arisen 
regarding whether a representative must specify, within the 
representative certification, whether they are serving as ``counsel'' 
or ``representative'' to the interested party. In addition, questions 
have arisen regarding whether foreign attorneys may appear as attorneys 
in Department proceedings and use the ``counsel'' designation in the 
representative certification.
    The Department recently addressed similar questions in promulgating 
19 CFR 351.313. See Attorneys/Representatives Accountability 
Regulation, 78 FR at 22774, 22777. In its final rule, the Department 
explained that ``an attorney, who is eligible to practice pursuant to 
the rules of the bar of the highest court of any State, possession, 
territory, or Commonwealth of the United States, or of the District of 
Columbia, who is not currently under suspension or disbarment, may 
practice as an attorney before the Department.'' Id. at 22774. The 
Department also noted that ``a foreign attorney, not licensed in the 
United States, a U.S. possession or territory, may not appear as an 
attorney in Department proceedings and may only appear as a non-
attorney representative. . . .'' Id. at 22777. Finally, section 351.313 
of the

[[Page 42691]]

Department's regulations provides that `` `{a{time} ttorney' pursuant 
to {Sec.  351.313{time}  and `legal counsel' in Sec.  351.303(g) have 
the same meaning. `Representative' pursuant to {Sec.  351.313{time}  
and in Sec.  351.303(g) has the same meaning.''
    Consistent with the Attorneys/Representatives Accountability 
Regulation and 19 CFR 351.313, the Department clarifies that for 
certification purposes, a person may use the ``counsel'' designation 
only if s/he is a member of the bar of the highest court of any State, 
possession, territory, or Commonwealth of the United States, or of the 
District of Columbia. Foreign attorneys who are not licensed in the 
United States, a U.S. possession, or territory must use the 
``representative'' designation for certification purposes.
    Accordingly, the Department has modified the text of the 
representative certification in 19 CFR 351.303(g)(2) as set out in the 
regulatory text of this rule to allow for representatives to select the 
appropriate designation.

Classification

Executive Order 12866

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq., the Chief Counsel for Regulation at the Department of Commerce 
has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business 
Administration, that this final rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual 
basis for this certification was published with the Interim Rule and is 
not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the economic 
impact of this rule. As a result, the conclusion in the certification 
memorandum for the Interim Rule remains unchanged and a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and one has not been 
prepared.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Executive Order 13132

    It has been determined that this rule 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, Business 
and industry, Confidential business information, Countervailing duties, 
Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 8, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

    For the reasons stated above, 19 CFR part 351 is amended as 
follows:

PART 351--ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES

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

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


0
2. Section 351.303(g) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  351.303  Filing, document identification, format, translation, 
service, and certification of documents.

* * * * *
    (g) Certifications. Each submission containing factual information 
must include the following certification from the person identified in 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section and, in addition, if the person has 
legal counsel or another representative, the certification in paragraph 
(g)(2) of this section. The certifying party must maintain the original 
signed certification for a period of five years from the date of filing 
the submission to which the certification pertains. The original signed 
certification must be available for inspection by U.S. Department of 
Commerce officials. Copies of the certifications must be included in 
the submission filed at the Department.
    (1) For the person(s) officially responsible for presentation of 
the factual information:
    (i) COMPANY CERTIFICATION *

    I, (PRINTED NAME AND TITLE), currently employed by (COMPANY 
NAME), certify that I prepared or otherwise supervised the 
preparation of the attached submission of (IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC 
SUBMISSION BY TITLE) due on (DATE) OR filed on (DATE) pursuant to 
the (INSERT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS IN { {time} : {THE 
(ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING) DUTY INVESTIGATION OF (PRODUCT) FROM 
(COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER){time}  or {THE (DATES OF PERIOD OF REVIEW) 
(ADMINISTRATIVE OR NEW SHIPPER) REVIEW UNDER THE (ANTIDUMPING OR 
COUNTERVAILING) DUTY ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE 
NUMBER){time}  or {THE (SUNSET REVIEW OR CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCE REVIEW 
OR SCOPE RULING OR CIRCUMVENTION INQUIRY) OF THE (ANTIDUMPING OR 
COUNTERVAILING) DUTY ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE 
NUMBER){time} ). I certify that the public information and any 
business proprietary information of (CERTIFIER'S COMPANY NAME) 
contained in this submission is accurate and complete to the best of 
my knowledge. I am aware that the information contained in this 
submission may be subject to verification or corroboration (as 
appropriate) by the U.S. Department of Commerce. I am also aware 
that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) 
imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and 
willfully make material false statements to the U.S. Government. In 
addition, I am aware that, even if this submission may be withdrawn 
from the record of the AD/CVD proceeding, the U.S. Department of 
Commerce may preserve this submission, including a business 
proprietary submission, for purposes of determining the accuracy of 
this certification. I certify that a copy of this signed 
certification will be filed with this submission to the U.S. 
Department of Commerce.

Signature:-------------------------------------------------------------

Date:------------------------------------------------------------------

    * For multiple person certifications, all persons should be listed 
in the first sentence of the certification and all persons should sign 
and date the certification. In addition, singular pronouns and 
possessive adjectives should be changed accordingly, e.g., ``I'' should 
be changed to ``we'' and ``my knowledge'' should be changed to ``our 
knowledge.''
    (ii) GOVERNMENT CERTIFICATION **
    I, (PRINTED NAME AND TITLE), currently employed by the 
government of (COUNTRY), certify that I prepared or otherwise 
supervised the preparation of the attached submission of (IDENTIFY 
THE SPECIFIC SUBMISSION BY TITLE) due on (DATE) OR filed on (DATE) 
pursuant to the (INSERT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS IN { {time} : 
{THE (ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING) DUTY INVESTIGATION OF (PRODUCT) 
FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER){time}  or {THE (DATES OF PERIOD OF 
REVIEW) (ADMINISTRATIVE OR NEW SHIPPER) REVIEW UNDER THE 
(ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING) DUTY ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM 
(COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER){time}  or {THE (SUNSET REVIEW OR CHANGED 
CIRCUMSTANCE REVIEW OR SCOPE RULING OR CIRCUMVENTION INQUIRY) OF THE 
(ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING) DUTY ORDER ON (PRODUCT) FROM 
(COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER){time} ). I certify that the public 
information and any business proprietary information of the 
government of (COUNTRY) contained in this submission is accurate and 
complete to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that the 
information contained in this submission may be subject to 
verification or corroboration (as appropriate) by the U.S. 
Department of Commerce. In addition, I am aware that, even if this 
submission may be withdrawn from the record of the AD/CVD 
proceeding, the U.S. Department of Commerce may preserve

[[Page 42692]]

this submission, including a business proprietary submission, for 
purposes of determining the accuracy of this certification. I 
certify that a copy of this signed certification will be filed with 
this submission to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Signature:-------------------------------------------------------------

Date:------------------------------------------------------------------

    ** For multiple person certifications, all persons should be 
listed in the first sentence of the certification and all persons 
should sign and date the certification. In addition, singular 
pronouns and possessive adjectives should be changed accordingly, 
e.g., ``I'' should be changed to ``we'' and ``my knowledge'' should 
be changed to ``our knowledge.''
    (2) For the legal counsel or other representative:

    REPRESENTATIVE CERTIFICATION * * *
    I, (PRINTED NAME), with (LAW FIRM or OTHER FIRM), (INSERT ONE OF 
THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS IN { {time} : {COUNSEL TO{time}  or 
{REPRESENTATIVE OF{time} ) (COMPANY NAME, OR GOVERNMENT OF COUNTRY, 
OR NAME OF ANOTHER PARTY), certify that I have read the attached 
submission of (IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC SUBMISSION BY TITLE) due on 
(DATE) OR filed on (DATE) pursuant to the (INSERT ONE OF THE 
FOLLOWING OPTIONS IN { {time} : {THE (ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING 
DUTY) INVESTIGATION OF (PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER){time}  
or {THE (DATES OF PERIOD OF REVIEW) (ADMINISTRATIVE OR NEW SHIPPER) 
REVIEW UNDER THE (ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING) DUTY ORDER ON 
(PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER){time}  or {THE (SUNSET REVIEW 
OR CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCE REVIEW OR SCOPE RULING OR CIRCUMVENTION 
INQUIRY) OF THE (ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING) DUTY ORDER ON 
(PRODUCT) FROM (COUNTRY) (CASE NUMBER){time} ). In my capacity as 
(INSERT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS IN { {time} : {COUNSEL{time}  
or {ADVISER, PREPARER, OR REVIEWER{time} ) of this submission, I 
certify that the information contained in this submission is 
accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that 
U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes 
criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make 
material false statements to the U.S. Government. In addition, I am 
aware that, even if this submission may be withdrawn from the record 
of the AD/CVD proceeding, the U.S. Department of Commerce may 
preserve this submission, including a business proprietary 
submission, for purposes of determining the accuracy of this 
certification. I certify that a copy of this signed certification 
will be filed with this submission to the U.S. Department of 
Commerce.

Signature:-------------------------------------------------------------

Date:------------------------------------------------------------------

    *** For multiple representative certifications, all 
representatives and their firms should be listed in the first 
sentence of the certification and all representatives should sign 
and date the certification. In addition, singular pronouns and 
possessive adjectives should be changed accordingly, e.g., ``I'' 
should be changed to ``we'' and ``my knowledge'' should be changed 
to ``our knowledge.''

[FR Doc. 2013-17045 Filed 7-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P