  
  
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34  
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35  
 
5 February  2024 
(24-0885) Page: 1/11 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices  
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  Original:  English  
 
  
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER  
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS  
UNITED STATES 
Supplement  
The following communication, dated and received on 31 January 2024, is being circulated at the 
request of the delegation of the United States.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Pursuant to Article 32.6 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  and Article 18.5 
of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade  1994, the United States her eby notifies : 
Procedures and Rules for Article 10.12 of the United States -Mexico -Canada Agreement1 
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has updated and made final an interim final rule 
that amends its regulations pertaining to the procedures and rul es related to Article 1904 of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with appropriate references to the 
United  States -Mexico -Canada Agreement (USMCA), which went into effect on July 1, 2020.  
Article  10.12 of the USMCA, like NAFTA Article 1904, pro vides a dispute settlement mechanism for 
purposes of reviewing antidumping and countervailing duty determinations issued by the 
United  States, Canada, and Mexico.  Commerce is amending its regulations to replace references to 
Article 1904 of NAFTA with refe rences to Article 10.12 of the USMCA; to update outdated 
cross-references to Commerce 's antidumping and countervailing duty regulations; update outdated 
notice, filing, service, and protective order procedures; and adopt other minor corrections and 
updates . 
The effective date of this final rule is March 1, 2024.  This final rule does not apply to any binational 
panel review under NAFTA, or any extraordinary challenge arising out of any such review, that was 
commenced before July 1, 2020.  
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 2024)]  
[Rules and Regulations]  
[Pages 6011 -6016]  
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] 
[FR Doc No: 2024 -01475]  
  
 
1 The United States requests that review of this notification be conducted in the Committee on 
Anti-Dumping Practices.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35  
 
- 2 - 
 
  =============================================================  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE  
International Trade Administratio n 
19 CFR Part 356  
[Docket No. 231127 -0278]  
RIN 0625 -AB20  
Procedures and Rules for Article 10.12 of the United States -Mexico -Canada Agreement  
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,  Department of 
Commerce.  
ACTION: Final rule.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
SUMMARY:  The Department of Commerce (Commerce) publishes this action  to update and make 
final an interim final rule that amended its  regulations  pertaining to the procedures and rules related 
to Article  1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with  appropriate references 
to the United States -Mexico -Canada Agreement  (USMCA), which went into effect on July 1, 2020. 
Article 10.12 of th e USMCA, like NAFTA Article 1904, provides a dispute settlement mechanism  for 
purposes of reviewing antidumping and countervailing duty  determinations issued by the 
United  States, Canada, and Mexico.  Commerce is amending its regulations to replace references to 
Article  1904 of NAFTA with references to Article 10.12 of the USMCA; to update  outdated 
cross-references to Commerce's antidumping and countervailing  duty regulations; update outdated 
notice, filing, service, and  protective order procedures; and adopt other minor corrections and  
updates.  
DATES: This final rule is effective 30 days after January 31, 2024.  This final rule does not apply to 
any binational panel review under  NAFTA, or any extraordinary challenge arising out of any such 
review,  that was commenced before July 1, 2020.  
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Nikki Kalbing, Assistant Chief  Counsel, at (202) 482 -4343, 
Spencer Neff, Attorney, at (202) 482 -8184,  or Scott McBride, Associate Deputy Chief Counsel, at 
(202) 482 -6292.  
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  
USCMA Background  
As background, on November 30, 2018, the "Protocol  Replacing the  North American Free Trade 
Agreement with the Agreement Between the  United States of America, the United  Mexican  States, 
and Canada " (the Protocol) was signed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement  
(NAFTA). The Agreement Between the United States of America, the United  Mexican States (Mexico), 
and Canada (the USMCA) \1\ is attached as an  annex to the Protocol and was subsequently amended 
to reflect certain  modifications and technical corrections in the "Protocol of Amendment  to the 
Agreement Between the United States of America, the United  Mexican States, and Canada " (the 
Amended Protocol), which the Office  of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) signed on 
December 10,  2019. The USMCA entered into force on July 1, 2020. \2\ 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35  
 
- 3 - 
 
  \1\ The Agreement Between the United States of America, the  United Mexican States, and 
Canada is the official name of the USMCA  treaty. Please be aware that, in other contexts, the same 
document  is also referred to as the United Sta tes-Mexico -Canada Agreement.  
\2\ Mexico, Canada, and the United States certified their  preparedness to implement the 
USMCA on December 12, 2019, March 13,  2020, and April 24, 2020, respectively. Pursuant to 
section  106 of  the Bipartisan Congressional Trade  Priorities and Accountability Act  of 2015 
(19 U.S.C.  4205) and section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974  (19 U.S.C. 2191), the United States 
adopted the USMCA through the  enactment of the United States --Mexico --Canada Agreement  
Implementation Act (USMCA Implem entation Act), Public Law 116 -113, 134 Stat. 11 (19 U.S.C. 
Chapter 29), on January 29, 2020. Pursuant  to paragraph 2 of the Protocol, which provides that the 
USMCA will  take effect on the first day of the third month after the last  signatory party provides  
written notification of the completion of  the domestic implementation of the USMCA through the 
enactment of  implementing legislation, the USMCA entered into force on July 1,  2020. On 
December  27, 2020, subsequent to the USMCA's entry into  force date of Ju ly 1, 2020, the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act,  2021 (Appropriations Act), Public Law 116 -260, was enacted with  
Title VI of the Act containing technical corrections to the USMCA  Act. All of the changes contained 
within Title VI of the  Appropriations Act a re retroactively effective on July 1, 2020.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Article 10.12 of the USMCA, like NAFTA Article 1904, provides a  dispute settlement mechanism 
for purp oses of reviewing antidumping and  countervailing duty determinations issued by the 
United  States, Canada,  and Mexico. The procedures and rules for binational panel review of  
antidumping and countervailing duty administrative determinations under  Article 10.12 of the 
USMCA are virtually unchanged from Article 1904 of  NAFTA.  
Sections 421 -433 and 504 of the USMCA Implementation Act provide  
[[Page 6012]]  
technical and conforming amendments to the Tariff Act of 1930, as  amended (the Act) related to 
Chapter 10 of the USMCA on antidumping and  countervailing duty matters. The Statement of 
Administrative Action  accompanying the USMCA Implementation Act provides that, "[i]n substance, 
U.S. laws and regulations are already in conformity with the  obligations a ssumed under [Chapter 10 
of the USMCA,] " and, therefore,  "no changes in administrative regulations, practices, or procedures  
are required to implement the. . .antidumping and countervailing duty  related provisions of 
Chapter  10." \3\ 
---------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
\3\ Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the USMCA  Implementation Act at 26.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------  
Pursuant to Article 10.12.14 of the USMCA, the United States,  Mexico, and Canada trilaterally 
negotiated and agreed to rules of  procedure for binational panel review modifying and updating the  
previous rules of procedure for  Article 1904 of NAFTA. Effective May  18, 2021, Decision No. 2 of the 
USMCA Free Trade Commission adopted the  rules of procedure applicable to all binational panel 
reviews under the  USMCA. The rules of procedure are contained in Annex II to that  decision a nd are 
cited as the Article 10.12 Binational Panel Rules. \4\ 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
\4\ Available at : https://ustr.gov/trade -agreements/free -trade -agreements/united -states -
mexico -canada -agreement/free -trade -commission -decisions/usmca -free-trade-commission -
decision -no-2. The Secretariat of the USMCA, comprised of a Canadian section, a United  States 
section and a Mexican section, is responsible fo r the administration of the binational panel review 
process.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35  
 
- 4 - 
 
  The Interim Final Rule  
On December 9, 2021, at 86 FR 70045, the Department published an  interim final rule 
implementing the following changes and soliciting  comments on those revisions. Commerce's 
regulations, 19 CFR part 356  (procedures and rules for the implementation of NAFTA Article 1904)  
were first promulgated in 1994 and ha ve not undergone any updates since  that time. Although not 
required by the USMCA Implementation Act,  Commerce is amending its regulations pertaining to the 
procedures and  rules governing the binational panel dispute settlement mechanism to  review 
antidumpi ng duty and countervailing duty determinations issued  by the United States as set forth in 
the USMCA. Because the dispute  settlement mechanism in USMCA Article 10.12 is substantively 
identical  to that in NAFTA Article 1904, Commerce adopted non -substantive  amendments to ensure 
that its rules appropriately reference the USMCA.  Commerce also adopted additional non -substantive 
amendments, including  updating outdated cross -references to Commerce's antidumping and  
countervailing duty regulations (19 CFR part 351 ), updating outdated  notice, filing, service, and 
protective order procedures, and adopting  other minor corrections and updates. These changes are 
explained in the  preamble of this rule and reflected in the regulatory text below.  
Explanation of Regulatory Updates in the Interim Final Rule  
1. Updates To Reflect the Enactment of the USMCA  
Commerce's regulations in 19 CFR part 356 implement procedures for  disputes pursuant to 
Article 1904 of NAFTA. Because NAFTA was replaced  pursuant to the enactment of the US MCA, 
Commerce's regulations in this  section require updates to reflect the name of the new agreement 
and the relevant chapter contained in the new Agreement. Therefore,  Commerce adopted several 
changes throughout part 356 to replace  references to NAFTA with references to the USMCA. 
Commerce also adopted  several changes throughout part 356 to replace references to section  402(g) 
of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act of  1993 with reference to 
section  412(g) of the United State s-Mexico -Canada Agreement Implementation Act of 2020, which 
authorized Commerce  to promulgate such regulations as necessary or appropriate to implement  its 
responsibilities under chapter 10 of the USMCA. \5\ 
------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------  
\5\ See United States -Mexico -Canada Agreement Implementation Act  of 2020, 
Public  Law 116-113, 134 Stat. 74 (Jan. 29, 2020); 19 U.S.C.  4582 (2020). See also North American 
Free Trade Agreement Ac t of 1993, Public Law 103 -182, 107 Stat. 2135 (Dec. 8, 1993) 
(section  402(g) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act  
(19 U.S.C.  3432(g)).  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------  
These changes are reflected in the title of part 356 and Sec. Sec.  356.1, 356.2(d), 356.2(f), 
and 356.2(kk) (replacing references to North  American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA with 
United  States -Mexico -Canada  Agreement or USMCA); Sec. Sec.  356.1, 356.2(f), (o), (p), 
and (cc)(3),  356.10(b)(1)(ii)(B), and 356.11(a)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) (replacing  references to 
Article  1904 of NAFTA with Article 10.12 of USMCA);  Sec. Sec.  356.2, 356.3, 356.4, 356.10(b)(4)(i), 
356.11(a)(5)  and (6) (replacing references to Article 1904 Panel Rules with Article 10.12  Binational 
Panel Rules); Sec.  356.1 (replacing references to section  402(g) of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement Implementation Act of  1993 with section 412(g) of the United States -Mexico -Canada 
Implementation Act of 2020); Sec.  356.2 (replacing the signing date of  NAFTA, December 17, 1992 
with the signing date of the amended USMCA,  November 30, 2018); Sec.  356.2(h), (p), and (w) 
(replacing references  to Chapter Nineteen with Chapter Ten);  Sec. 356.2(h) (replacing  references 
to Annex 1901.2 with Annex 10 -B.1); in Sec.  356.2(p)  (replacing references to Annex 1904.13 with 
Annex 10 -B.3); Sec. 356.2(q) (replacing references to Article 1911 with Article 10.8);  Sec. 356.2(ff) 
(replacing references to Article 2002 with Article  30.6); and Sec.  356.2(r) (replacing references to 
section 516A(f)(9)  of the Act with section 516A(f)(10) of the Act).  
Commerce also removed several references to the United States -Canada Free Trade 
Agreement, which was superseded by NAFTA. Commerce's  regulations contained provisions 
governing dispute resolution pursuant  to the United States -Canada Free Trade Agreement. Because 
there are no  active disputes pursuant to that agreement, Commerce removed reference  to the G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35  
 
- 5 - 
 
  United  States -Canada Free Trade Agreement throughout its  regulations. These changes are reflected 
in the revised Sec. Sec.  356.2(d), 356.10(c)(1)(ii), and 356.11(c)(1)(ii).  
2. Updates To Address Obsolete Regulatory Cross -References  
Commerce also updated outdated regulato ry cross -references in 19  CFR part 356 to 
19 CFR part 353 (addressing antidumping duty rules and  procedures) and 355 (addressing 
countervailing duty rules and  procedures) which became obsolete when Commerce consolidated 
parts 353  and 355 into a single part  351 in 1997. \6\ Despite the 1997  consolidation, references to 
obsolete parts 353 and 355 remain in part  356. Therefore, Commerce removed obsolete 
cross-references to parts 353  and 355 and replaced them with updated references to 
19 CFR part 351 to  reflect the 1997 consolidation of the AD/CVD regulations and any  relevant 
subsequent  
[[Page 6013]]  
regulatory changes Commerce made to part 351 thereafter. \7\ 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------  
\6\ See 62 FR 27296, 27297 (May 19, 1997) (final rulemaking to  eliminate Parts 353 and 355 
and promulgate a single Part 351, 19 CFR  351, in their place); see also 61 FR 7308, 7310 
(Feb. 27, 1996)  ("[I]n response to the President's Regulatory Reform Initiative, to  reduce the 
amount of duplicative material in the regulations, the  Department has consolidated the antidumping 
and countervailing duty  regulations into a new Part 351, and is removing Parts 353 and  355."). 
\7\ See, e.g., 62 FR 27296 (M ay 19, 1997); 73 FR 3627 (Jan. 22,  2008); 76 FR 39275 
(July 6, 2011); 80 FR 36473 (June 25, 2015); and  85 FR 17007 (March 26, 2020).  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
These change s are reflected in Sec. 356.2(u) (replacing cross -references to 
19 CFR 353.31(e)(2)(i) through (v) or 355.31(e)(2)(i)  through (v) with 19 CFR 351.303(d)(2), 
which outlines Commerce's  current requirements for document submissions with respect to  
specifications and first page "letter of transmittal " markings);  Sec. Sec.  356.7(b) and 356.8(d) 
(replacing cross -references to 19 CFR  353.31(d) and (e)(2) and 19 CFR 355.31(d) and (e)(2) with 
references to  19 CFR 351.303(b) and (d)(2), which outline Comme rce's current format  and filing 
requirements for document submissions); Sec. Sec.  356.7(c)  and 356.8(d) (replacing 
cross-references to 19 CFR 353.31(g) and 19 CFR  355.31(g) with reference to current 
19 CFR 351.303(f) which outlines  Commerce's current servi ce requirements).  
3. Updates To Address Outdated Notice, Filing, Service, and Protective  Order Procedures  
Commerce also updated its regulations relating to certain outdated  notice procedures. 
Specifically, current Sec. Sec.  356.6 and 356.7  provide that Com merce will notify governments of 
Free Trade Agreement  (FTA) Countries of scope determinations and contemplate that such  
determinations not be published in the Federal Register. \8\ Under  current Sec. 356.6, when 
Commerce makes a scope determination, notice  of such scope determination shall be deemed 
received by the Government  of an FTA country when a certified copy of the determination is  delivered 
to the chancery of the Embassy of the FTA.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------  
\8\ This language originated in the 1988 interim final rule for  the United States -Canada Free 
Trade Agreement. See Panel Review  Under Article 1904 of the U.S. -Canada Free -Trade Agreement, 
53 FR  53232, 53233 (Dec. 30, 1988) (interim final rule).  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Under Commerce's current procedures, scope rulings under 19 CFR  351.225 are a type of 
"class or kind determination, " a term that also  encompasses circumvention determinations under 
section 781 of the Act.  In some instances, a class or kind determination may be published in  the G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Federal Register. Otherwise, interested parties will be notified of  a determina tion through other 
means, including through mailing or  electronic means. Section 516A(g)(10) of the Act, as amended 
by the  USMCA Implementation Act, provides that Commerce, upon request, shall  inform any 
interested person of the date on which the Governmen t of the  relevant FTA country received notice 
of the determination. However, the  statute is silent as to the method of notice to the government of 
an FTA country, and, therefore, it is left to the discretion of  Commerce. \9\ 
-------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
\9\ Similarly, the relevant language in USMCA Article 10.12.4  does not specify the method by 
which the importing Party must notify  the other involved Party of determinations not  published in 
the official journal: "In the case of final determinations that are not  published in the official journal 
of the importing Party, the  importing Party shall immediately notify the other involved Party of  such 
final determination where it invol ves goods from the other  involved Party, and the other involved 
Party may request a panel  within 30 days of receipt of such notice. " Nor do the Article 10.12  
Binational Panel Rules, which state at Article 39(2)(c) that a  Request for Panel Review must conta in 
"the date on which the notice  of the final determination was received by the other Party if the  final 
determination was not published in an official publication. " There are no specific requirements on 
the method of notification.  
------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Accordingly, Commerce revised Sec. 356.6 to state that notice  shall be deemed received either 
on the date on which the class or kind  determination is published in the Fe deral Register, or, if the  
determination is not published, on the date on which Commerce conveys a  copy of the determination 
by electronic notification to the government.  Further, in instances in which Commerce does not 
publish the  determination, these changes will require that Commerce: (1) confirm  the appropriate 
Embassy electronic mail address, and (2) directly  convey to the Embassy an electronic copy of the 
determination during  the Embassy's normal business hours. Commerce also a dopted changes to  
reflect that "class or kind determination " is a more accurate term  than "scope determination " for 
these types of determinations. Similar  edits are reflected in Sec. 356.7. In addition, for ease of 
reference,  the definition for scope deter mination in Sec. 356.2(ee) has been  expanded to include 
reference to class or kind of merchandise  determination.  
Commerce also amended Sec. Sec.  356.10 and 356.11 regarding the  procedures for access 
to proprietary and privileged information during  a USMCA binational panel dispute. Current 
Sec. 356.10 requires a party  seeking access to proprietary information to do so by submitting an  
application for a protective order. Such applications are to be filed  with the U.S. section of the USMCA 
Secretariat, which i n turn provides  the applications to Commerce. Upon approving the application, 
Commerce  will then issue the protective order to the Secretariat, which in turn  will issue the 
protective order to the original applicant along with  other participating parties t o the dispute. The 
procedures in Sec.  356.10(b)(3) have been updated to remove the requirement for manual  filing.  
Additionally, current Sec. 356.10(b)(4)(ii) provides the method of  service by which a 
protective order may be served. Because this  provision does not currently account for service by 
electronic means,  which is now permitted by the U.S. section of the Secretariat under the  
Article  10.12 Binational Panel Rules, Commerce added language to Sec. 356.10(b)(4)(ii)(B) to allow 
for electronic means as a method of  service for protective orders. Further, Commerce added an 
additional  provision ( Sec. 356.10(b)(4)(ii)(D)) to reflect that the U.S. section  of the Secretariat 
allows for the filing of documents using an  electronic filing platform to sat isfy service requirements 
under the  Article 10.12 Binational Panel Rules. Commerce is also adding  corresponding language to 
Sec. 356.10(b)(4)(iii) regarding the date of  service if a document is served by electronic means or 
filed using the  electronic filin g platform.  
Commerce is also revising Sec. Sec.  356.7(b); 356.8(d)(1);  356.10(b)(3) through (5), 
(c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(i) and (v), (c)(3),  (c)(4)(i), and (d)(2), 356.11(a)(2) and (3), (a)(5)(i) and (ii),  
(c)(1)(i), (c)(2) and (3), and (d)(2) to remove language  requiring  originals and multiple copies, as 
such a requirement has been made  obsolete. Moreover, Commerce is also revising Sec. 
Sec. 356.10(b)(1)(ii)(C), 356.11(b)(2)(iii), 356.12(a)(5), 356.14(d)(2) and  (4), and 356.18(c)(4) 
to remove language requiring parties to return  documents released under protective order and to 
log the use of  proprietary documents, as such requirements have become obsolete, and  to instead 
require parties to destroy and certify to the destruction of  documents released under protect ive 
order.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4. Other Minor Corrections and Updates  
Commerce also adopted minor corrections and updates to part 356 in  Sec. 
Sec. 356.10(b)(1)(i) and 356.11(b)(1) (updating the address and  the room number of the Central 
Records Unit); Sec. Sec.  356.7(b) and  356.8(d)(1) (updating the address and the room number of 
the APO/Dockets  Unit); Sec. Sec.  356.2(ee) and 356.27(d) (correcting  punctuation); Sec. 356.2(kk) 
(correcting the address of the Commerce  Department); Sec. 356.2(bb)(2) (updating the name of 
Mexico's  Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento  Industrial to the Secretariat of  Economy); and 
Sec. 356.11(c)(3) (adding a missing word in the title of  the paragraph). In addition, Commerce 
updated the definition of the  term 
[[Page 6014]]  
"director " as specified  in Sec. 356.2(n) to correspond with the  current definition in 19 CFR part 354, 
revised by Commerce in 1998. \10\ Finally, we are making a minor addition to the interim final rule 
to revise Sec. 356.9 (g) to reflect modern practices and procedures in  USCMA hearings and 
meetings. Commerce added individuals employed to  provide audiovisual services at hearings, 
meetings or other events as  needed to the list of persons authorized to receive proprietary  
information to that provision, as such persons were not incl uded in the  past regulation, but normally 
require access to such information to  provide their services.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
\10\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:  
Administrative Protective Order Procedures; Procedures for Imposing  Sanctions for Violation of a 
Protective Order, 85 FR 24391, 24400,  24403 (May 4, 1998) (final rule) (revising the definition of 
the term "director " in 19 C FR 354.2 to include "Senior APO  Specialist " and to conform with changes 
in office director  positions following an internal reorganization).  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Respo nses to Comments on the Interim Final Rule  
On January 10, 2022, Commerce received comments from the government  of Canada 
(Canada) on the interim final rule. We have made some  clarifying edits to the interim final rule in 
response to those  comments.  
Suspension of Liquidation Pending Binational Panel Review  
Canada requests that Commerce amend 19 CFR 356.8 to clarify that  Commerce will order 
continued suspension of liquidation pending  binational panel review upon request by a foreign 
governmen t interested  party that satisfies the criteria set out in 19 U.S.C  1516a(g)(5)(C)(i). Canada 
argues that in 19 U.S.C 1516a(g)(5)(C)(i)  (which generally covers parties to a proceeding), Congress 
did not  intend to further limit the scope of suspension reques ts by foreign  government interested 
parties. Canada further argues that 19 U.S.C  1516a(g)(5)(C)(iii) (which lists the parties who can 
request continued  suspension of liquidation) "does not, in any way, limit the types of  interested 
parties that may request  continued suspension of liquidation  . . . the  eligibility criteria for suspension 
requests are instead set  out in {19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(5)(C)(i)} , which requires that  Commerce order 
continued suspension of liquidation upon the request of  an interested part y, including a foreign 
government interested party,  that satisfies those criteria. " Canada then argues that, because  
"liquidation moots a party's claim pertaining to liquidated entries, " \11\ a foreign government 
interested party's right to review would be  hollow in situations where parties have not requested 
suspension.  Therefore, Canada requests that Commerce amend 19 CFR 356.8 to conform  with its 
interpretation of the statute, and to list foreign government  interested parties as parties that may 
request suspension.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
\11\ Agro Dutch Indus. v. United States, 589 F.3d 1187, 1190  (Fed. Cir. 2009) (discussing 
Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States , 710 F.2d 806 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35  
 
- 8 - 
 
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Canada argues that amending the Interim Rules would eliminate  confusion caused by 
inconsistencies in the wordin g of the statute and  the regulation. Canada identified the 
2005 Administrative Review of  Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, where Commerce 
granted  Canada's request for continued suspension of liquidation pending  binational review, \12\ and 
the 20 21 Administrative Review of Certain  Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, where 
Commerce did not grant  Canada's request, as inconsistent in this respect. \13\ Canada argues  that 
the inconsistent treatment amplifies confusion caused by the  wording of 19 CFR 356.8, which does 
not directly address whether  foreign government interested parties can request suspension of  
liquidation.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
\12\ See Certain Soft wood Lumber Products from Canada, 69 FR  75917 (Dec. 20, 2004); see 
also GOC's Comments at Attachment A.  
\13\ See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 85 FR  77163 (Dec. 1, 2020) 
(Canadian Lumber 2021); see also GOC's Comments  at Attachment B (ACCES S barcode: 
4075213 -01) (Canadian Lumber 2021  Memo).  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Canada also argues that amending the Interim Rules would spare  Commerce from the burden 
of addressing hundreds of unnecessary  individual requests.  
Response:  
We disagree with Canada's interpretation of the statute. Section 19  U.S.C. 1516a(g)(5)(C)(iii) 
does not provide for suspension of  liquidation requests by foreign government interested parties.  
Commerce  most recently expressed this view in the context of Canadian Lumber  2021, in which 
Commerce found that there was "no basis in U.S. law " for Canada to request suspension of 
liquidation. \14\ Specifically,  because 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(5)(C)(iii) does not include foreign  
government interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(B)) as  parties to whom suspension 
of liquidation may apply, the statute does  not allow for foreign government interested parties to 
request the  suspension of liquidation.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
\14\ See Canadian Lumber 2021 Memo at 1.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------  
We do agree, however, with Canada that an amendment to the Interim  Rules would resolve 
confusion regarding this issue. Therefore, we have  amended 19 CFR 356.8(b)(2) to provide that 
"{f}oreign  governments are not listed as interested par ties who may request the  continuation of 
suspension under 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(5)(C)(iii). " 
Finally, we find that Canada's comments regarding the  administrative burden of addressing 
suspension requests from interested  parties do not supersede the correct int erpretation of the 
statute.  Even if the language proposed by Canada were to relieve Commerce of an  administrative 
burden, that proposed language would conflict with the  statute, and therefore the change proposed 
by Canada should not be  adopted by Commerce' s regulations.  
Definition of "Class or Kind Determinations " 
Canada requests that Commerce amend 19 CFR 356.2(ee) to clarify  that the definition of 
"scope determination or class or kind of  merchandise determination " is inclusive of circumvention 
inquiries a nd covered merchandise referral determinations, in addition to scope  rulings. \15\ Canada 
argues that retaining "scope determination " as part of the term defined would be inconsistent with 
Commerce's stated  objective and the language of the Tariff Act, in a  way that risks  unnecessary 
confusion. Therefore, Canada requests that Commerce excise  the words "scope determination or " 
from 19 CFR 356.2(ee), and specify  in 19 CFR 356.2(ee) that all determinations issued under 
Sec. 351.225  (scope determinations), Sec. 351.226 (circumvention determinations),  or G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Sec. 351.227 (covered merchandise determinations) fall within the  definition of "class or kind of 
merchandise determination. " 
---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------  
\15\ The Interim Rule also revised 19 CFR 356.6 and 356.7 to use  the term "class or kind 
determination " instead of "scope  determination. " Procedures and Rules for Article 10.12 of the  
United  States -Mexic o-Canada Agreement, 86 FR 70045, 70047 (Dec. 9,  2021) (Interim Rule).  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Response:  
We agree with Canada. Commerce has previously found that  circumvention inquiries 
constitute "class or kind determinations. " \16\ Moreover, we agree that it is appropriate to construe 
covered  merchandise determinations as class or kind determinations as defined  by 
19 U.S.C.  1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi). Finally, we   
[[Page  6015]]  
agree that the inclusion of the words "scope determination or " in 19 CFR 356.2(ee) is confusing and 
inappropriate, because circumvention and  covered merchandise determinations are distinct from 
scope  determinations, but are nonetheless considered c lass or kind  determinations. Therefore, we 
adopt the amendments proposed by Canada  with respect to 19 CFR 356.2(ee).  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
\16\ Regulations To Improve Administration and Enforcement of  Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Laws, 86 FR 52300, 52302 (Sep.  20, 2021).  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
APO Application Deadlines  
Canada requests that Commerce amend 19 CFR 356.10(c)(2)(i) to  conform deadlines for 
considering administrative protective order (APO)  applications to those deadlines not covered by the 
USMCA. Canada argues  that that Sec. 356.10(c) of the interim rules provides too long a  period for 
parties to object to APO applications and is inconsistent  with Commerce's procedures for APO 
applications outside of binational  panel reviews. Specifically, interim rule Sec. 356.10(c)(2) 
precludes  Commerce from ruling on the  person described in 19 CFR 356.9(b) "until at least ten days 
after the request is filed, unless there is  compelling need to rule more expeditiously. " This section 
further  provides that any person may file an objection to an application within  seven days o f its 
filing.  
Canada urges Commerce to shorten the period for parties to object,  noting that there is no 
comparable provision in Commerce's non -USMCA  regulations. Canada notes that 19 CFR 351.305(c) 
works well in general  and would also work well in USMCA p roceedings. Moreover, there is  nothing in 
either the Rules of Procedure for Article 10.12, or the  Court of International Trade procedures that 
would require this  disparate treatment.  
Response:  
Commerce disagrees with Canada and is making no changes to its  interim rule in this regard. 
Canada acknowledges that Commerce did not  make substantive changes to 19 CFR 356.10(c)(2), 
and Commerce only  updated its APO rules in 19 CFR 351.310(c) to remove the need for  manual 
filing of APO applications. A change in the d eadline for parties  to object to APO applications was not 
included in Article 10.12 of the  USMCA and was not contemplated by Commerce in the Interim Rule.  
Moreover, Canada does not provide a compelling reason for its proposed  change. We disagree with 
Canad a that we should conform our APO  deadlines to the comparable provision in regulations outside 
of those  governing binational panel reviews. The regulations and procedures for  binational panel 
reviews, housed in 19 CFR part 356, are distinct from  regulations  governing Commerce's standard 
antidumping and  countervailing duty proceedings, and therefore do not necessarily need  to be 
conformed with those regulations. It has been Commerce's practice  since the promulgation of the 
original 19 CFR 356.10(c)(2) to allo w ten  days before ruling on an APO application in a binational G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35  
 
- 10 - 
 
  panel review.  Therefore, the change proposed by Canada, pertaining to the length of  time parties 
have to object to APO applications, is not necessary or  appropriate here.  
Classifications  
Administrative Procedure Act  
Under section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5  U.S.C. 553), agencies 
generally are required to publish a notice of  proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that solicits 
public  comment on the proposed regulat ory amendments, consider public comments  in deciding on 
the content of the final amendments, and publish the  final amendments at least 30 days prior to 
their effective date. The  APA (5 U.S.C. 553(b)) provides a statutory exemption to 
notice -and-comment rul emaking for rules of agency organization, procedure, or  practice and when 
the agency finds for good cause that such procedures  are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 
to the public interest.  Commerce's amendments to the regulation, 19 CFR part 356, fal l within  this 
exemption. Nevertheless, on December 9, 2021, Commerce published  an interim final rule 
implementing the above changes and soliciting  comments on those revisions. On January 10, 2022, 
Commerce received  comments from the government of Canada. T he changes made in this final  rule 
pursuant to Canada's comments will be effective 30 days after the  publication of this rule in the 
Federal Register, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  553(d).  
Executive Order 12866  
OMB has not found this rule to be a significant rulema king under  Executive Order 12866, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094.  
Executive Order 13132  
This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism  implications as that term is defined 
in section 1(a) of Executive Order  13132, dated August 4, 1999 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)).  
Paperwork Reduction Act  
This rule does not contain a collection of information subject to  the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 (PRA).  
Regulatory Flexibility Act  
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601  et seq.), as amended,  requires an agency to 
prepare and make available to the public a  regulatory flexibility analysis that describes whether a 
rule will have  a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities when the  agency is 
required to pu blish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.  Because a notice of proposed 
rulemaking is not necessary for this rule,  Commerce is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility 
analysis  for this rule, and none has been prepared.  
List of Subjects in 19 C FR Part 356  
Administrative practice and procedure, Antidumping, Business and  industry, Confidential 
business information, Countervailing duties,  Imports.  
Dated: January 22 , 2024.  
Abdelali Elouaradia,  
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Complianc e. G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.34 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35  
 
- 11 - 
 
  For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Commerce  is adopting the interim 
rule amending 19 CFR part 356 published  December 9, 2021, at 86 FR 70045, as final with the 
following changes:  
PART 356 --PROCEDURES AND RULES FOR ARTICLE 10.12 OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES -MEXICO -CANADA AGREEMENT  
0 
1. The authority citation for part 356 continues to read as follows:  
Authority:  19 U.S.C. 1516a and 1677f(f), unless otherwise  noted.  
0 
2. In Sec. 356.2, revise paragraph (ee) to read as follows:  
Sec. 356.2   Definitions.  
* * * * *  
(ee) Class or kind of merchandise determination means a  determination by the Department, 
reviewable under section  516A(a)(2)(B)(vi) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi)), as to  whether 
a particular type of merchandise is within the class or kind of  merchandise described in an existing 
finding of dumping or an  antidumping or countervailing duty order covering free trade area  country 
merchandise. This includes Department rulings and  determinations issued under Sec. Sec.  351.225, 
351.226, and 351.227.  
* * * * *  
0 
3. In Sec. 356.8, revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:  
[[Page 6016]]  
Sec. 356.8   Continued suspension of liquidation.  
* * * * *  
(b) * * *  
(2) A participant in a binational panel review that was a domestic  party to the proceeding, as 
described in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E),  (F), or (G) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C), (D), (E), (F) 
and (G)),  may request continued suspension of liquidation of entries of  merchandise covered by the 
administrative determination und er review by  the panel and that would be affected by the panel 
review. Foreign  governments are not listed as interested parties who may request the  continuation 
of suspension under 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(5)(C)(iii).  
* * * * *  
0 
4. In Sec. 356.9, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:  
Sec. 356.9   Persons authorized to receive proprietary information  
* * * * *  
(g) Every court report, interpreter, and translator employed in a  panel or extraordinary 
challenge committee review, as well as  individuals employ ed to provide audiovisual services at 
hearings,  meetings, or other events as needed.  
[FR Doc. 2024 -01475 Filed 1 -30-24; 8:45 am]  
BILLING CODE 3510 -DS-P 
 
__________  