is whether voluntary respondents are and unambiguously included in the phrase exporters and producers individually investigated this is important as it relates to the general rule and the exception for counseling the others rape that provision states that congress might must set the all other straight equal to the weighted average of the individually excuse me the individual kind of able subsidy rates question here were the your clients were quote individually investigated this conclave much matching that's right absolutely and and this is important because the the exception to the provision is only available if the rates of all exports of producers individually investigated are zero trying but i think it isn't isn't the argument on the other side that whatever has happened to your clients they work individually investigated as contemplated by the statute  parallel track or someplace else yes as a clarification our our clients are the u s importers and the the parties for which this you know the department of commerce argues is a parallel track where the voluntary respondents in the investigated is ambiguous but in a dictionary the definition of the word individual is separate and investigated as examined and that's exactly what happens here with both ontario and mandatory responded but key is the clues in a calculation right until you know where where the others rate is is required to be the basis of into it are the rates of exports to producers individual investigated the voluntary respondents were decision number one is that that legislative history is the regulatory history created by the department of commerce the second is that any a policy concerns about self selection do not identify ambiguity ambiguities in the statute and s individually selected responded in this case us individually selected or the individually investigated or individually selected these are mandatory responses we're talking about and no other top responded well statute or congress is required when in this case there was another would respond that involved right and these are the ones that were not selected at all because of the the the structure of the market but the statute says a voluntary sponsor not in this really selected for  individual examination but in fact they are selected in this case if one hundred of the non mandatory respondents had sought voluntary status or voluntary treatment congress or the panther select among those one hundred the respondents mandatory responded said that really comprise a bulk of the exports to the united states then you have to respond to who who who respond voluntary sponsors and they get a percent one percent market and commerce looks at that and says if we do that we're going to allow response to game the system or our response to did not choose to participate and maybe two or three will choose with very low rates or participate and we'll end up having to to impose a as she has a duty that is not representative of the entire picture i mean that's that's what we're looking at as well  what that argument is invalid for three reasons first is that as i mentioned earlier the policy concerns are not do not identify ambiguity in the statute second in this case what we're dealing with  the static trying to arrange the the procedure in a way to arrive at a just a just decision just determination yes and it does by requiring the use of counterweighted rates that are based upon data that is submitted to the department of commerce and verified by the department of commerce you have well you know with mandatory rates and voluntary it's also them fit this mold where it's actual commercial reality presented via commerce doesn't have to accept a voluntary response participation it does if it has the resources available in this case all three mandatory respondents failed to respond and department con identified that it had the resources to examine three companies and so when those mandatory responded didn't respond they took the two voluntary sponsor and this is a as required by our six hundred seventy five and i was just sort of curious of how co decided to go about whether to accept or not accept the voluntary responders offer it's an offer isn't it and then it is an offer and they're required to take them in if they have the resources and so i'm just wondering if the government is  be selected as a mandatory responded in the carlo anti dumping case i would like to if i may but it isn't the kind of recognize that a voluntary responded will step forward only if they know there they're going correct isn't that the incentive for them to sit back and see what's what's going to happen it's not necessarily unreasonable given the context of what the department congress has done without perspective able rates or rates or you know initially in this case almost one hundred percent  voluntary respondents and in my own experience want to control their own case and and typically have a rate that may be higher or lower but it's it's their own right but if there had been no volunteers here and if you didn't include then they basically have understanding was that there's nothing in the stat when the statute was enacted that what my understanding was that there was no legislative history that told me much about individually investigated that is correct except for the statement of administrative action that does state straights in the chevron framework the question the first step is chevron asks has congress opens a precise issue and in this case and is that necessitates congress to not precisely to the issue of whether voluntary rates do not explicitly state of ontario rates should be included within the all other stories that when we look at the statutory scheme as a whole there's at least some indication that they should be executed that isn't the real question was is this procedures reasonable you know very i know then that when you do statutory construction you know you look at the statute you say is it ambiguous is individually investigated and you we certainly start with that question but that the court also has to look at when  voluntary respondent raise unambiguous lee required to be included in the calculation of the all others free and we know by the that the mandatory respondent statute that a mandatory response rate must be the  statute the refers to how congress is to treat volunteers on it is silent on the issue as to whether congress is required to include that so there's at least some ambiguity in the statutory scheme as a whole as to whether congress intended  the voluntary response rates to be included in the all others rates and if you if you see that at least the congress hasn't spoken precisely to the issue whether or not  when we look at the statute a whole rather than focusing solely on those two words individual investigated then we believe that the answer the answer is no can spare million dollars write a law that has a term that is clear in its meaning you define you know what the because you're looking at the statute i mean there's two ways you can look at it sheriff says that you have to look and see whether whether congress is directly spoken to the precise question at issue current and and it's commerce to mourn fully developed how that was to be cast in this one when when congress adopted the the statement administrative action that's that cited it was aware methods for determining the rates and to the extent that there was an indication as the regulatory history points out there was at least some indication that that there was an intention that voluntary responded to raise the ana a parallel argument i think hinges on the notion that mandatory have to be included in the calculation of all others right at that is they're saying that's clear that's what let me ask you this question does the statute provide for the inclusion in the general whole is that you take the weighted average of the rates calculated the mandatories and you exclude any race or calculate for your at a minimum or more total effect but if that is all that that commerce has then you go to the exception in part two which says that commerce may use any reasonable method including using those rates so there isn't that the ambiguity there i mean here you have a situation where you that that's where the regulation comes in i think what the what the appellant here want to want to argue is that you know if you include the voluntary rates and you execute the mandatory rates then all the sudden you have a the discretion to choose one or the other and in this case comer selected the three representing the vast majority of exports of his product into this country any more questions must determine an individual count available subsidy rate for each exporter and producer individually investigated and then estimated dollars rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated so it sets up a binary system is that congress identified that what is included in the universe or in the subset of exports of producers individually investigated are those for whom there has been in the video counter available subsidy  subsidy rate but also in sixteen seventy seven m a for congress also still the congress must as determined an individual countervail subsidy rate for voluntary respondents i also like to address the question of the exception which states that congress cannot use the exception if the rates of are until the rates of all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero de minimus and based entirely upon  a rate of four percent then here is saying that that congress must apply that four percent as the all of the rate to all the companies other the mandatory responds yes that's right because the exception prevents context if there is a council a good rate for a voluntary respondent that's available then congress cannot go to the exception