77722 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Notices 

Applications may be rejected if it is 

determined that the export or reexport 

of the system poses a threat to U.S. 

national security. 

II. Method of Collection 

Submitted, as required, with form 

BIS–748P. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0694–0013. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Type of Review: Regular submission 

for extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

Affected Public: Individuals, 

businesses or other for-profit and notfor-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

80. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 32 

minutes per response. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 86. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: No 

start-up capital expenditures. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they will also become a matter of public 

record.

Dated: December 21, 2004. 

Madeleine Clayton, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–28285 Filed 12–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

Separate-Rates Practice in 

Antidumping Proceedings Involving 

Non-Market Economy Countries

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Announcement of change in 

practice and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: On May 3 and September 20, 

2004, the Department of Commerce 

published notices in the Federal 

Register requesting comments on its 

separate rates practice (69 FR 24119 and 

69 FR 56188). This practice refers to the 

Department’s long-standing policy in 

antidumping proceedings of presuming 

that all firms within a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country are subject 

to government control and thus should 

all be assigned a single, country-wide 

rate unless a respondent can 

demonstrate an absence of both de jure

and de facto control over its export 

activities. In that case, the Department 

assigns the respondent its own 

individually calculated rate or, in the 

case of a non-investigated or nonreviewed firm, a weighted-average of the 

rates of the investigated companies, 

excluding any rates that were zero, de 

minimis, or based entirely on facts 

available. In the Department’s previous 

NME antidumping investigations, 

exporters seeking a separate rate have 

had to respond to section A of the NME 

questionnaire for purposes of providing 

the Department evidence of the 

exporters’ independence of government 

control over their export activities. 

Taking into account the comments it 

has received and without ruling out any 

additional changes in the future, the 

Department has provisionally decided 

to adopt an application process for 

evaluating separate rate requests by noninvestigated firms, and to consider 

instituting combination rates (also 

known as ‘‘chain’’ or ‘‘channel’’ rates) 

for all firms receiving a separate rate in 

NME cases. Because several of the 

interested parties requested an 

opportunity to comment on the 

application before a final decision is 

made, the draft application has been 

posted on the Import Administration 

Web site at the following address:

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. This model 

application is based on a PRC 

investigation. We expect it would be 

modified on a case-by-case basis, 

depending on the NME under 

investigation. This notice will also 

describe how the application process 

will function in greater detail and serve 

as an opportunity to provide additional 

comments on both the shift from a 

section A response to an application 

process as well as on specific fields in 

the application itself. In particular, the 

Department welcomes comments on 

whether the fields in the application 

and the supporting documents it 

requires are sufficient for a firm to 

demonstrate its eligibility for a separate 

rate without being unnecessarily 

burdensome for the Department or for 

importers. 

The second part of this notice, 

drawing on interested parties’

comments, describes the Department’s 

proposal to introduce combination rates 

in all of its NME antidumping cases in 

more detail, and clarifies how 

combination rates would work in 

practice. Because the Department 

recognizes that assigning combination 

rates in all of its NME cases would be 

a change in practice, and because 

parties have raised questions about the 

implementation and administration of 

this method of assigning antidumping 

margins, the Department is giving the 

public an additional opportunity to 

comment on this proposed change in 

practice. The Department is particularly 

interested in comments addressing how 

combination rates might work in 

practice, on whether there are obstacles 

to its effective implementation, and 

what the implications of combination 

rates might be for the Department or for 

respondents. 

The Department is not ruling out 

additional changes to its separate rates 

practice, and will consider changes to 

its policy and practice in other areas. 

For this notice, however, the 

Department is most interested in 

comments on the application process 

and on its draft application, as well as 

on the proposal to institute combination 

rates for all NME exporters. The 

proposed application and application 

process are not yet finalized and are 

subject to modification. Furthermore, 

the Department has not made a final 

decision with respect to the draft 

application on the Import 

Administration Web site or on 

combination rates for all NME exporters. 

The Department’s position with respect 

to both of these issues will be finalized 

after it has analyzed the comments it 

will receive in response to this notice.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

January 24, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Written comments (original 

and six copies) should be sent to James 

J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 

1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20230. The 

Department recommends submission of 

comments in electronic form to 

accompany the required paper copies. 

Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted either by e-mail to 

the webmaster below, or on CD–ROM.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lawrence Norton, Economist, or 

Anthony Hill, Senior International 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Notices 77723

Economist, Office of Policy, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington DC, 20230, 

202–482–1579 or 202–482–1843.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In an NME antidumping proceeding, 

the Department presumes that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to governmental control and 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty rate unless an 

exporter demonstrates the absence of 

both de jure and de facto governmental 

control over its export activities. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the 

People’s Republic of China, 61 FR 

19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). If an 

exporter demonstrates this 

independence in its export activities, it 

is eligible for a rate that is separate from 

the NME-wide rate. This separate rate is 

usually an individually calculated rate 

or a weighted-average of the rates of the 

investigated companies, excluding any 

rates that were zero, de minimis, or 

based entirely on facts available. The 

Department’s separate rates test is not 

concerned, in general, with 

macroeconomic border-type controls 

(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices), particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

the dumping of merchandise in the 

United States. Rather, the test focuses 

on controls over the decision-making 

process on export-related investment, 

pricing, and output decisions at the 

individual firm level. See, e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine, 62 FR 

61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); and 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 

61279 (November 17, 1997). 

To establish whether a firm is 

sufficiently independent from 

government control in its export 

activities to be eligible to be assigned a 

separate rate, the Department analyzes 

each exporting entity under a test 

arising from the Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified in 

the Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon 

Carbide). Under this test, the 

Department assigns separate rates in 

NME cases only if an exporter can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure

and de facto governmental control over 

its export activities. See Silicon Carbide

and Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from 

the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). In order to 

request and qualify for a separate rate, 

a company must have exported the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the period of investigation 

or review, and it must provide 

information responsive to the following 

considerations: 

1. Absence of De Jure Control: The 

Department considers the following de 

jure criteria in determining whether an 

individual company may be granted a 

separate rate: (1) An absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. 

2. Absence of De Facto Control: 

Typically, the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to the approval of, 

a governmental authority; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the central, 

provincial, or local governments in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of its management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. 

In an antidumping investigation or 

review, the Department currently 

assigns a weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates, excluding 

any rates that were zero, de minimis, or 

based entirely on facts available, to 

exporters who have not been selected as 

mandatory respondents if they fulfill 

two requirements. First, they must 

submit a request for separate rates 

treatment, along with a timely response 

to section A of the Department’s 

questionnaire. Second, the Department 

must determine, after reviewing the 

requesting companies’ submissions, that 

separate rates treatment is warranted. 

See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular 

Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

36570, 36571 (May 24, 2002). 

As it announced in its September 20, 

2004 and May 3, 2004, notices in the 

Federal Register (69 FR 56188, 69 FR 

24119), the Department is considering 

changes to the practice detailed above in 

response to the growing administrative 

burden of analyzing requests for 

separate rates (especially inadequate 

submissions requesting separate rates 

treatment), and in response to concerns 

that the separate rates test could be 

made more effective in determining 

whether a company is eligible for a 

separate rate. The Department has faced 

a large number of separate rate requests 

in three recent investigations involving 

two NME countries. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom Furniture 

from the People’s Republic of China, 69 

FR 67313 (November 17, 2004) (PRC 

Furniture); Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 70997 

(December 8, 2004) (PRC Shrimp); and 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004) (Vietnam 

Shrimp).

While the Department analyzed the 

large number of separate rates requests 

in these three investigations, it has 

become clear that these requests 

consume an inordinate amount of the 

Department’s resources. Various parties 

have also raised questions that the 

Department’s separate rates test, as 

currently constructed, may not offer the 

most effective means of determining 

whether exporters act independently of 

the government. Some parties have 

argued that the current separate rates 

test does not go far enough in analyzing 

whether a firm acts both de jure and de 

facto independently of the government 

in its export activities, whereas others 

have argued that the test already goes 

beyond what is necessary and poses an 

unnecessary burden on respondents and 

on the Department. 

Another issue that has been raised by 

parties concerns the potential evasion of 

duties. Under current practice, separate 

rates are assigned only to exporters, and 

this assigned rate applies to all of the 

firm’s exports regardless of which entity 

produced the subject merchandise. 

Various interested parties argued that 

this practice is unfair, because while the 

margins the Department calculates are 

taken from a discrete set of suppliers, 

the cash deposit applies to any 

merchandise exported by the exporter in 

question, regardless of whether it was 

supplied by the same producers that 

77724 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Notices 

were investigated. The separate rate 

presumes that the exporters’ activities 

are free from government control, but in 

allowing other ‘‘non-investigated’’ firms 

to benefit from this rate, these interested 

parties claim the Department 

undermines the effectiveness of its test. 

They argue further that the 

Department’s current practice of 

accounting for changes in suppliers 

during administrative reviews is 

unsuited to industries with rapid shifts 

in sourcing and where suppliers can 

appear and disappear frequently. 

Finally, under the current practice, 

because the rates the Department 

assigns often vary widely from exporter 

to exporter (due partly to the NME- or 

country-wide rate), exporters assigned 

either the country-wide rate or a high 

calculated rate, can easily shift their 

shipments of subject merchandise to 

another exporter assigned a lower rate. 

Such diversion arguably undermines the 

effect of other antidumping duty 

margins the Department calculates. 

As discussed above, the Department 

has provisionally decided to introduce 

an application process for evaluating 

separate-rate requests by companies that 

have not been selected as mandatory 

respondents. The appendix to this 

notice describes the rationale behind the 

separate-rate application, and the draft 

application itself is posted on the 

Import Administration Web site at the 

following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.

The appendix to this notice also 

describes the proposal to institute 

combination rates in all of its NME 

cases in more detail and offers the 

public another chance to comment on 

whether combination rates would be an 

effective remedy for the problems 

described above, and whether they 

would be consistent with the statute and 

regulations. 

Comments 

Persons wishing to comment should 

file a signed original and six copies of 

each set of comments by the date 

specified above. The Department will 

consider all comments received before 

the close of the comment period. 

Consideration of comments received 

after the end of the comment period 

cannot be assured. The Department will 

not accept comments accompanied by a 

request that a part or all of the material 

be treated confidentially because of its 

business proprietary nature or for any 

other reason. The Department will 

return such comments and materials to 

the persons submitting the comments 

and will not consider them in 

development of any changes to its 

practice. All comments responding to 

this notice will be a matter of public 

record and will be available for public 

inspection and copying at Import 

Administration’s Central Records Unit, 

Room B–099, between the hours of 8:30 

a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. The 

Department requires that comments be 

submitted in written form. The 

Department recommends submission of 

comments in electronic form to 

accompany the required paper copies. 

Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted either by e-mail to 

the webmaster below, or on CD–ROM as 

comments submitted on diskettes are 

likely to be damaged by postal radiation 

treatment. Comments received in 

electronic form will be made available 

to the public in Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

Import Administration Web site at the 

following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.

Any questions concerning file 

formatting, document conversion, 

access on the Internet, or other 

electronic filing issues should be 

addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import 

Administration Webmaster, at (202) 

482–0866, e-mail address: webmastersupport@ita.doc.gov.

Dated: December 16, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix 

(1) The Department has provisionally 

decided to change its separate rates 

procedure for non-investigated firms that 

request a separate rate from a process in 

which an exporter fills out a Section A 

questionnaire to an application process. 

Exporters that the Department selects as 

mandatory respondents will continue to 

respond to the entire questionnaire, 

including Section A, but Section A will be 

updated to conform with what is included in 

the application. The draft application can be 

found at the following address: http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/. The draft application was 

designed to take into account concerns that 

the separate rates test could be improved to 

be a better measure of the export 

independence of firms, as well as concerns 

that the current test is too time-consuming 

and burdensome on the Department and on 

respondents. The application does not alter 

the standard laid out in Sparklers and Silicon 

Carbide for evaluating whether an applicant 

is subject to de jure or de facto government 

control. Rather, by drawing on the 

experiences of the recent NME investigations 

and interested parties’ comments, the 

application process should be more 

straightforward and thorough while saving 

both the Department and applicants time and 

resources. In particular, by explicitly 

detailing which documents the Department 

will accept to substantiate a separate rates 

claim, the application should minimize the 

need for the extensive supplemental 

questionnaires that have proven to be 

burdensome and time-consuming. Since 

firms will have clear notice of what is 

required to document a separate rates claim, 

firms submitting incomplete applications 

will be rejected for separate rates status 

without supplementary questionnaires. 

Because adequate substantiation of a separate 

rates claim will be required and subject to 

verification, the application will be a 

meaningful test of a firm’s eligibility for a 

separate rate. 

The introduction of the application will be 

a dynamic process, where the Department 

would be ready to update the application as 

circumstances or experience warrants. In 

addition, the application would be tailored to 

some extent to each case. For example, the 

draft application’s de jure section asks about 

various PRC government laws, which would 

obviously be changed in cases involving 

other NME countries. As discussed above, 

the application is intended to remedy 

problems that parties have identified with 

the current separate rates process. In the 

recent PRC Furniture, PRC Shrimp and 

Vietnam Shrimp cases, the Department often 

required several rounds of questionnaires to 

ascertain whether firms operated de jure and 

de facto independently of the government in 

their export activities. In these cases, several 

firms the Department had rejected for 

separate rates status at the preliminary 

determination returned, post-preliminary 

determination, with more evidence of their 

eligibility for a separate rate and then were 

granted a separate rate at the final 

determination. To the extent that such 

situations can be avoided in the future, both 

the Department and applicants will save time 

and resources, without undermining the 

Department’s ability to enforce the 

antidumping law and without denying 

respondents the full opportunity to 

demonstrate their eligibility for a separate 

rate. 

A primary goal of the separate rates 

application is to make it completely clear 

what documentation applicants must provide 

to demonstrate their eligibility for a separate 

rate, so as to avoid the need for the 

Department to issue supplemental 

questionnaires and avoid unnecessary 

rejections of applicants. Having drawn on the 

experiences of its recent investigations, as 

well as on comments from interested parties, 

the Department considers the application 

process to be both an effective analytical tool 

and one which does not place on applicants 

an unfair burden. 

The application is streamlined to focus on 

those issues most relevant to separate rate 

eligibility; it requires firms to certify their 

eligibility for a separate rate, and it lists 

documents that respondents must submit in 

order to substantiate these certifications. 

Furthermore, the Department has 

incorporated questions not addressed 

currently in its standard NME Section A 

questionnaire that are pertinent to separate 

rates eligibility, and welcomes further 

suggestions in this area. While the 

Department reserves the right to issue 

supplemental questionnaires and verify 

applicants, such questionnaires and 

verifications function as further confirmation 

of firms’ export independence, rather than as 

repetitions of what is expressly required by 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Notices 77725

the application. As noted above, because the 

application is clear about what is required, 

the Department will reject incomplete 

applications without issuing supplemental 

questionnaires. 

To streamline the process further, the 

application will be available for printing on 

the Import Administration Web site, so that 

firms that have not received paper copies of 

the application will be aware of the 

application, its requirements, and deadline 

for submission. The Department may 

consider in the future requiring firms to 

submit the application electronically, but this 

is not the case at the current time, and firms 

will be expected to submit their separate 

rates application in the same way they 

currently file any documents with the 

Department. The Department has determined 

that this application represents an 

improvement over current practice and is fair 

to all parties. Nonetheless, the Department 

welcomes comments on the application and 

on particular fields therein by the deadline 

listed above. 

(2) The Department is seriously 

considering adopting ‘‘combination rates’’

(alternatively referred to as ‘‘chain’’ or 

‘‘channel’’ rates) in all of its NME cases, as 

first proposed in the previous requests for 

comments in (69 FR 24119) and (69 FR 

56188). In response to these requests for 

comments, some parties have made powerful 

arguments that combination rates are 

necessary for a more effective enforcement of 

the dumping margins the Department 

calculates. In particular, parties have argued 

that since the Department margin 

calculations are based on the factors of 

production of the producer that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation or 

review, the rates the Department assigns 

should only apply to those producers. In 

addition, these parties argue, NME exporters 

assigned either a high margin or denied a 

separate rate are free to export their 

merchandise through exporters assigned a 

lower rate, leading to a ‘‘funneling’’ of all the 

subject merchandise through the exporters 

with the lowest rates. 

Other parties, however, have questioned 

the usefulness of combination rates, and have 

raised concerns that combination rates would 

place a difficult burden on the Department, 

on U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and 

on respondents. These parties argue that it is 

counterproductive to propose making 

separate rates supplier-specific at a time 

when the Department is seeking to expedite 

the handling of the increasing number of 

separate rate requests it receives. These 

parties also argue that it would be a step back 

for the Department to limit the application of 

the separate rates it grants to subject 

merchandise produced by particular 

suppliers, particularly when in many 

industries it is common for exporters to 

source their merchandise from whichever 

producer is currently offering the lowest 

price. Finally, these parties argue that 

whatever change in the margin that may 

result from a shift in supplier will be 

accounted for in the next administrative 

review. 

The Department understands the concerns 

of both sides on this issue and recognizes 

that issuing combination rates in NME 

investigations and administrative reviews 

would constitute a significant change in 

practice. Accordingly, the Department will 

make a final decision only after it has 

conducted a full analysis of the advantages 

and disadvantages of this change in practice, 

with an opportunity for public participation. 

For this reason, and to clarify exactly how 

the Department proposes to implement 

combination rates, the Department is offering 

another opportunity for comment on this 

proposed change in practice.

Under current NME practice, the 

Department assigns exporter-specific separate 

rates, and not exporter-producer combination 

rates, with three exceptions. The first 

exception concerns exclusions, in which case 

the exporter that is excluded receives an 

exporter-producer combination rate so that 

the exclusion from the antidumping order 

only applies when the exporter sources from 

the same supplier(s) as in the original 

investigation. See sections 733(b)(3) and 

735(a)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, and 19 CFR 351.107(b)(1). The 

second exception involves the Department’s 

enforcement of the law as it relates to 

middleman dumping. When a producer/

exporter sells to an unaffiliated middleman 

with the knowledge of the ultimate 

destination of the merchandise, and that 

middleman subsequently sells merchandise 

to the United States at less than fair value, 

the Department will calculate a combination 

antidumping duty rate for the producer/

exporter and middleman in many cases. The 

third exception concerns the Department’s 

policy on new shipper reviews, where the 

rate is assigned to the exporter-producer 

combination. See Import Administration 

Policy Bulletin 03.2: Combination Rates in 

New Shipper Reviews, dated March 04, 2003. 

The Department is considering extending 

this practice of assigning exporter-producer 

combination rates to NME exporters 

receiving a separate rate so that only the 

specific exporter-producer combination that 

was specifically investigated or reviewed on 

the record by the Department receives the 

calculated rate for establishing the cash 

deposit rate for estimated antidumping 

duties. This would not mean that the 

separate rates analysis would be extended 

back to producers, or that producers would 

in any way be required to demonstrate their 

independence of government control. The 

separate rates test focuses exclusively on the 

independence of respondent’s export 

activities from de jure and de facto

government control. 

Under combination rates, firms qualifying 

for a separate rate, including both mandatory 

respondents and other exporters applying for 

a separate rate, would be required to list all 

the suppliers whose merchandise they 

exported to the United States during the 

period of investigation. The rate the 

Department would assign as a cash deposit 

to an NME exporter that had passed the 

separate rates test would only apply to 

merchandise produced by those suppliers 

that had supplied subject merchandise to the 

exporter for export to the United States 

during the period of investigation. The 

Department would then issue instructions to 

Customs that this calculated rate would only 

apply to subject merchandise that is exported 

by the firm that has received that separate 

rate, and has been produced by one of the 

producers the firm certified as having 

supplied it during the period of investigation. 

Merchandise produced by other suppliers but 

exported by the respondent would receive 

the NME-wide cash deposit rate until the 

administrative review, when factors on this 

new supplier can be collected and final 

dumping duties assessed. This would happen 

even if the producer(s) outside the 

combination had supplied a different 

respondent during the period of 

investigation. 

The following is an example of how 

combination rates would work in practice. 

Exporter A seeks a separate rate during the 

investigation and supplies the Department 

with the necessary certification and 

documentation to obtain separate rates status. 

Further, Exporter A certifies that it sourced 

20 percent of its subject merchandise for 

export to the United States during the period 

of investigation from Producer B, 30 percent 

from Producer C, and 50 percent from 

Producer D. It makes no difference if 

Exporter A is affiliated with its producers or 

not. Exporter A demonstrates its 

independence from the government in its 

export activities, and receives a separate rate 

for cash deposit in the preliminary 

determination based on the firm’s sales to the 

United States, and on the weighted factors of 

production of its three suppliers. 

After the preliminary and final 

determinations, this cash deposit rate would 

apply to all of the merchandise exported by 

Exporter A and supplied by Producers B, C, 

and D (if they supplied Exporter A during the 

period of review), in any proportion. That is, 

Exporter A would be free to source 

exclusively from Producer B, despite it 

having been a relatively minor supplier 

during the period of investigation. If Exporter 

A desired to introduce a new supplier, 

Producer E, it would have to make at least 

one sale of merchandise produced by 

Producer E to the United States at the NMEwide cash deposit rate. This is because the 

separate rate it was originally assigned was 

derived from the factors of production only 

from the three original suppliers and thus 

only applies to merchandise produced by the 

three original suppliers. 

For the administrative review, Exporter A 

would have the option to request that it be 

reviewed. During the review, the Department 

would again collect factors information from 

Producers B, C, and D, as well as from the 

new supplier, Producer E. Thus, the new 

cash deposit rate going forward would be 

based on information from all four suppliers, 

and the combination would then be 

expanded to include Producer E. 

Furthermore, since the final dumping duties 

would be assessed during the administrative 

review, any difference between the NMEwide cash deposit rate Exporter A paid for its 

exports from Producer E and its final 

dumping margin would be refunded to 

Exporter A. 

The Department welcomes comments on 

the legal and administrative advisability of 

introducing combination rates in all of its 

77726 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Notices 

NME cases. In addition, the Department 

welcomes comments on how combination 

rates might best be implemented. 

[FR Doc. 04–28324 Filed 12–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A–570–853

Notice of Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review and Revocation 

of the Antidumping Duty Order: Bulk 

Aspirin from the People’s Republic of 

China

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review and 

Revocation of the Antidumping Duty 

Order.

SUMMARY: On June 24, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published a 

notice of initiation and preliminary 

results of changed circumstances review 

and intent to revoke the antidumping 

duty order on bulk aspirin from the 

People’s Republic of China (69 FR 

35286). We gave interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

preliminary results. Based on our 

analysis of the comments received, we 

intend to revoke this order effective July 

1, 2003, the earliest date for which 

entries of bulk aspirin have not been 

subject to an administrative review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Holland, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–1279.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 11, 2000, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published an antidumping duty order 

on bulk aspirin from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See Notice 

of Antidumping Duty Order: Bulk 

Aspirin from the People’s Republic of 

China, 65 FR 42673 (July 11, 2000). On 

April 30, 2004, Bimeda Inc. (‘‘Bimeda’’), 

a U.S. importer of bulk aspirin and an 

interested party in this proceeding, 

requested that the Department conduct 

a changed circumstances review for the 

purpose of revoking the antidumping 

duty order on bulk aspirin from the 

PRC. According to Bimeda, Rhodia, Inc. 

(‘‘Rhodia’’), the petitioner in the original 

investigation, and the only U.S. 

producer at the time the order was 

issued, closed its sole production 

facility related to the manufacture of 

bulk aspirin in the United States on or 

about December 20, 2002. Bimeda 

provided a press release, a news article, 

an excerpt from Rhodia’s 2001 annual 

report to the Securities and Exchange 

Commission, and a product datasheet 

posted on Rhodia’s corporate website to 

support its contention. (See Notice of 

Initiation and Preliminary Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review and 

Intent to Revoke the Antidumping Duty 

Order: Bulk Aspirin from the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 35286 (June 

24, 2004) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’)).

In response to a request from the 

Department, on May 25, 2004, Rhodia 

stated that it had ceased production at 

its U.S. aspirin plant on February 28, 

2003. Rhodia also indicated that it is 

still liquidating its inventory of bulk 

aspirin produced in the United States.

On June 17, 2004, Bimeda submitted 

additional information to support its 

request for a changed circumstances 

review. Bimeda asserted that it 

purchases only veterinary–grade bulk 

aspirin from Rhodia. According to 

Bimeda, Rhodia confirmed via a phone 

call to Bimeda’s sales personnel that 

U.S.-produced subject merchandise was 

still being liquidated out of inventory, 

but not veterinary–grade aspirin. 

Bimeda further asserted that the 

changed circumstances review was still 

warranted and requested revocation of 

the order in full or alternatively, to 

exclude veterinary–grade bulk aspirin 

from the scope of the order.

Based on Bimeda’s April 30, 2004, 

submission and Rhodia’s May 25, 2004, 

submission, the Department initiated 

this changed circumstances review and 

issued preliminary results on June 24, 

2004. Since the publication of the 

Preliminary Results of this review the 

following events have occurred:

We invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. On July 26, 2004, 

Perrigo Company (‘‘Perrigo’’), an 

importer of bulk aspirin from the PRC, 

Bimeda, Rhodia, and Shandong Xinhua 

Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shandong’’), 

a Chinese producer and exporter of bulk 

aspirin from the PRC and a respondent 

in the original investigation, submitted 

comments on the Preliminary Results. 

No rebuttal comments were submitted, 

nor was a public hearing held.

Scope of the Order

The product covered by this review is 

bulk acetylsalicylic acid, commonly 

referred to as bulk aspirin, whether or 

not in pharmaceutical or compound 

form, not put up in dosage form (tablet, 

capsule, powders or similar form for 

direct human consumption). Bulk 

aspirin may be imported in two forms, 

as pure ortho–acetylsalicylic acid or as 

mixed ortho–acetylsalicylic acid. Pure 

ortho–acetylsalicylic acid can be either 

in crystal form or granulated into a fine 

powder (pharmaceutical form). This 

product has the chemical formula 

C9H8O4. It is defined by the official 

monograph of the United States 

Pharmacopoeia 23 (‘‘USP’’). It is 

currently classifiable under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 

2918.22.1000.

Mixed ortho–acetylsalicylic acid 

consists of ortho–acetylsalicylic acid 

combined with other inactive 

substances such as starch, lactose, 

cellulose, or coloring materials and/or 

other active substances. The presence of 

other active substances must be in 

concentrations less than that specified 

for particular nonprescription drug 

combinations of aspirin and active 

substances as published in the 

Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs, 

eighth edition, American 

Pharmaceutical Association. This 

product is currently classifiable under 

HTSUS subheading 3003.90.0000.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under review is 

dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

We have addressed the comments of 

the parties in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ from Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Import Administration to James J. 

Jochum, Assistant Secretary, Import 

Administration, dated December 9, 2004 

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), which is on 

file in the Department’s Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room B–099 of the 

main Department building. In addition, 

a complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content.

Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review and Revocation 

of the Antidumping Duty Order

Pursuant to sections 751(b) and (d) 

and 782(h) of Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), as well as 19 

C.F.R 351.222(g) of the Department’s 

regulations, and consistent with the 

Preliminary Results, we determine that 

the continued relief provided by the 

order with respect to bulk aspirin from 

the PRC is no longer of interest to the