13246 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 

1The full text of the policy bulletin can be found 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html. 

2The Department now uses per capita GNI, rather 

than per capita GDP, because while the two 

measures are very similar, per capita GNI is 

reported across almost all countries by an 

authoritative source (the World Bank), and because 

the Department believes that the per capita GNI 

represents the single best measure of a country’s 

level of total income and thus level of economic 

development. 

Comment 7: Corrections to U.S. Sales 

A. Entered Value 

B. International Freight 

C. U.S. Inland Freight from 

Warehouse 

Comment 8: Surrogate Values 

A. Fish Waste 

B. Whole Fish 

C. Ice 

D. Wage Rates 

Comment 9: Surrogate Financial Ratios 

A. Bionic Seafoods 

B. Calculation of Ratios 

Comment 10: Clerical Errors in Margin 

Calculation 

A. Conversion of Water 

B. Assessment Rate: Importer of 

Record vs. Customer Code 

C. Exchange Rates 

D. Containerization 

Comment 11: CEP Verification Report 

Comment 12: Denominator and 

Numerator of FOPs 

A. Choi Moi’s Denominator 

B. Thuan An and Dong Thap’s 

Numerator 

C. Thuan An’s Denominator 

D. Dong Thap’s Numerator and 

Denominator 

Comment 13: Thuan An’s Financial 

Statements 

Comment 14: Gross Weight vs. Net 

Weight 

Comment 15: New Factual Information 

Comment 16: Clarification of Vietnam 

Verification Report 

[FR Doc. E7–5178 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Antidumping Methodologies in 

Proceedings Involving Non–Market 

Economy Countries: Surrogate 

Country Selection and Separate Rates 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Request for Comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) requests public 

comment on two aspects of its non–

market economy (‘‘NME’’) methodology 

in antidumping proceedings. First, the 

Department seeks comment on certain 

aspects of the methodology by which it 

selects an economically comparable 

surrogate market economy country for 

the NME country under investigation or 

review. Second, the Department is 

requesting comment on the 

methodology under which individual 

NME exporters can demonstrate 

independence from government control 

of their export activities and thereby 

qualify for separate rate status. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

thirty days from the publication of this 

notice. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments (original 

and six copies) should be sent to David 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 

1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th 

Street NW, Washington, DC, 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lawrence Norton, Economist, or 

Anthony Hill, Senior International 

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, 

respectively. 

Issue One: Surrogate Country Selection 

Background 

In antidumping proceedings involving 

NME countries, the Department 

calculates normal value by valuing the 

NME producer’s factors of production, 

to the extent possible, using prices from 

a market economy that is at a 

comparable level of economic 

development and that is also a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise. The Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), provides broad 

discretion in the selection of surrogate 

market economy countries to value 

NME factors of production. In 

particular, section 773(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act reads: 

...the valuation of the factors of 

production shall be based on the 

best available information regarding 

the values of such factors in a 

market economy country or 

countries considered to be 

appropriate by the administering 

authority. 

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act adds: 

The administering authority, in 

valuing factors of production under 

paragraph (1), shall utilize, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs 

of factors of production in one or 

more market economy countries 

that are 

A. at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the nonmarket 

economy country, and 

B. a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise. 

The Act does not provide a definition 

of ‘‘comparable level of economic 

development,’’ ‘‘comparable 

merchandise,’’ or ‘‘significant 

producer.’’ However, the Department’s 

regulations do provide guidelines for 

comparing levels of economic 

development. 19 CFR 351.408(b) reads: 

Economic Comparability. In 

determining whether a country is at a 

level of economic development 

comparable to the nonmarket economy 

country under section 773(c)(2)(B) or 

section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act, the 

Secretary will place primary emphasis 

on per capita GDP as the measure of 

economic comparability. 

Finally, the Department provided 

further guidance on economic 

comparability in a 2004 Policy Bulletin, 

establishing a sequential procedure for 

selecting a surrogate country, with 

economic comparability being the first 

factor considered. Import 

Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1 

states1: 

First, early in a proceeding, the 

Operations team sends the Office of 

Policy (‘‘OP’’) a written request for 

a list of potential surrogate 

countries. In response, OP provides 

a list of potential surrogate 

countries that are at a comparable 

level of economic development to 

the NME country. OP determines 

economic comparability on the 

basis of per capita gross national 

income, as reported in the most 

current annual issue of the World 

Development Report (The World 

Bank). The surrogate countries on 

the list are not ranked and should 

be considered equivalent in terms 

of economic comparability. Both 

the team’s written request and OP’s 

response should be made available 

to interested parties by being placed 

on the record of the proceeding. 

As noted above, in each proceeding, 

the Department generates a list of 

potential surrogate countries. In 

constructing this list, the Department 

orders the per capita gross national 

income (‘‘GNI’’) figures as reported in 

the latest available published edition of 

the World Bank’s World Development 

Report, disregarding countries 

designated as NMEs during the period 

of review.2 From among the remaining 

group of countries, the Department 

selects approximately five with similar 

levels of economic development to the 

NME that have offered, in the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 13247 

Department’s experience, the statistical 

sources and breadth of information that 

might make them suitable surrogate 

countries in the specific proceeding. 

The Department places this list on the 

record and invites comment from the 

interested parties, who may suggest that 

the Department consider other 

economically comparable surrogate 

countries. However, absent comment 

from parties, the Department normally 

will determine, from among the 

countries on this list, which country 

produces merchandise comparable to 

the subject merchandise in significant 

quantities and offers adequate data upon 

which to base the review. 

The process of selecting an 

appropriate surrogate country for the 

NME is a crucial element of an NME 

antidumping proceeding, particularly 

since the regulations direct the 

Department to normally value all of the 

NME factors of production with data 

from the primary surrogate country. See 

19 CFR 351.408(c)(2). Because of the 

importance of finding a suitable 

surrogate country, the Department does 

not consider a country’s level of 

economic comparability in isolation, but 

considers whether the potential 

surrogate country is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise 

and offers the data necessary to conduct 

the proceeding. See Policy Bulletin 

04.01. Accordingly, as the footnotes to 

the Policy Bulletin cited above clarify, 

the statute and regulations do not 

restrict the Department’s analysis 

simply to a review of per capita GNI, as 

such an analysis would unreasonably 

limit the Department from choosing the 

most appropriate surrogate country. As 

the footnotes state, the Department 

‘‘excludes countries that are technically 

presumed to be market economies, but 

which in OP’s judgment are unsuitable 

sources for factor values’’ and ‘‘current 

practice reflects in large part that the 

statute does not require the Department 

to use a surrogate country that is at a 

level of economic development most 

comparable to the NME country.’’

Indeed, the Department often disregards 

certain countries that it deems to be 

unsuitable sources for factor values 

based on factors other than per capita 

GNI. For example, using the current 

2005 GNI data, the closest country to 

Vietnam’s level of economic 

development (at $620 per capita) is 

Sudan, with $640 per capita. Sudan, 

however, with its ongoing internal 

conflicts, would be unlikely to offer 

adequate data on which to base the 

dumping calculation, so the Department 

turns instead to other countries as 

potential surrogates. 

Request for Comment 

The selection of an appropriate 

surrogate country is, in large part, 

necessarily a case–specific issue, since 

the range of available data and 

production of comparable merchandise 

vary with the product under 

investigation or review. The specific 

question of economic comparability 

does remain largely constant from case 

to case, however, and it is on this aspect 

of the surrogate country selection 

process that the Department is now 

requesting comment. Specifically, the 

Department seeks comment on (1) how, 

given the requirement to base the 

determination on per capita income, the 

Department should determine which 

countries are economically comparable 

to a given NME country, and (2) 

whether and on what basis the 

Department should disregard certain 

economically comparable countries as 

lacking data suitable for valuing the 

factors of production. 

Regarding the first question, on how 

the Department determines economic 

comparability, the Department uses per 

capita income to measure comparability, 

but even if a country is the most 

economically comparable to the NME, 

this does not mean that the Department 

is obliged to use that country as the 

primary surrogate. Often, there is a 

range of countries from which the 

Department could select the most 

appropriate potential surrogate based on 

their relative production of comparable 

merchandise, and on data 

considerations. See, e.g., Memorandum 

from Ron Lorentzen to Howard Smith 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China: Request for 

a List of Surrogate Countries (January 

22, 2007). The Department is now 

soliciting comment on the extent to 

which, if any, there are limitations as to 

this range. For example, at what point 

should differences in per capita GNI of 

a potential surrogate and the NME be 

‘‘too large’’ for the two to be considered 

‘‘economically comparable? 

Furthermore, should the Department 

develop a standard for deciding which 

countries to include on the initial list of 

potential surrogate countries? What 

could be an appropriate standard for 

determining which countries are likely 

to offer the necessary data for 

conducting an antidumping proceeding? 

As noted above, interested parties will 

continue to have the opportunity to 

suggest the use of economically 

comparable countries that do not appear 

on the initial list of potential surrogates. 

Nevertheless, the Department first 

examines (absent any submission from 

parties) this initial list of countries to 

determine whether any of the included 

countries are appropriate surrogate 

countries. Accordingly, the Department 

welcomes comment on how this list 

should be constructed. Should this list 

be comprehensive (which may require 

that the Department and interested 

parties examine the extent of production 

of comparable merchandise in every 

economically comparable country), or 

could the list be limited in some way? 

Is there a broad measure of countries’

data quality (for example, the 

availability, reliability, and accuracy of 

import statistics) that the Department 

could use to determine at the outset of 

the proceeding a subset of the 

economically comparable countries for 

consideration as a primary surrogate? 

Should the Department consider 

whatever countries remain after 

applying these data screens, or should 

the Department ensure that the final list 

includes a balance of countries both 

above and below the NME’s per capita 

income? 

Issue Two: Separate Rates In Nme 

Antidumping Proceedings 

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 through 

a ‘‘separate rates’’ test. 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). 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 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); 

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); and 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
13248 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

14725, 14727 (March 20, 1995). 

To establish whether a firm is 

sufficiently independent from 

government control in its export 

activities to be entitled to 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, 

it is the Department’s practice that a 

company must have exported 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 over its export 

activities: (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. 

The Department last invited public 

comment on its separate rates 

methodology in a process that 

culminated in April 2005, when it 

announced a change in practice in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 17233) and 

posted a concurrent Policy Bulletin on 

the Import Administration website 

(Import Administration Policy Bulletin 

05.1, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

policy/bull05–1.pdf). Prior to that, the 

Department published three notices in 

the Federal Register soliciting comment 

on its separate rates practice (69 FR 

24119, 69 FR 56188, and 69 FR 77722). 

The Department was prompted to 

request public comment on this issue 

because of the large and increasing 

numbers of requests for separate rates 

status the Department had received in 

recent years, which led to two concerns. 

The first is that it proved increasingly 

difficult to evaluate the large number of 

separate rate requests made by 

respondents. The second concern was 

whether the implementation of the 

separate rates test could be improved to 

more effectively determine whether 

respondents act, de facto, 

independently of the government in 

their export activities. 

Taking into account comments 

submitted by the public, the Department 

adopted an application process for 

evaluating separate rate requests by 

non–investigated firms. This application 

process, which in subsequent cases was 

extended from initial investigations to 

administrative reviews, streamlined the 

process of evaluating separate rates 

requests but did not alter the threshold 

of eligibility for a separate rate, which 

remained an absence of de jure and de 

facto government control over a firm’s 

export activities. Despite the 

introduction of the application process 

for evaluating requests for separate rates 

status, however, the administrative 

burden on the Department of evaluating 

separate rates requests continued to 

increase. As a result, the Department 

began to employ a separate rates 

‘‘certification’’ process in certain recent 

reviews involving numerous potential 

respondents, in which firms that had 

already obtained a separate rate in a 

previous segment were able to submit a 

certification form in lieu of the full 

application. See Notice of Initiation of 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China 71 FR 11394, (March 

7, 2006), and Notice of Initiation of 

Administrative Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders on Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam and the People’s 

Republic of China 71 FR 17813, (April 

7, 2006). 

Request for Comment 

The Department is now requesting 

public comment on the separate rates 

test as a whole and how its 

implementation could be further 

improved. As noted above, while the 

Department has revised its 

administration of the separate rates test 

over the past ten years, it has not 

modified the test itself during this time. 

The Department has also received 

comments from certain parties alleging 

that testing firms for independence over 

their export activities is no longer 

necessary in light of economic reforms 

that have occurred in particular NME 

countries. The Department is therefore 

issuing this notice to invite comments 

concerning whether alternatives to its 

current separate rates test should be 

considered, i.e., on whether a 

reconsideration of the test as outlined in 

Sparklers and Silicon Carbide is 

warranted. The Department is also 

interested in comments on whether the 

Department should consider revisions 

in the implementation of the current 

test, particularly on the proper balance 

between efficiency and enforcement in 

the implementation of the separates 

rates test, i.e., on whether the 

Department can reduce the 

administrative burden on both the 

Department and on interested parties in 

operationalizing the test. In providing 

comment, however, the Department 

requests that parties address the real 

possibility that streamlining the test 

might impact the enforcement goal of 

the test, that only firms operating 

independently of government control 

over their export activities become 

eligible for an individually calculated 

rate. 

Submission of 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. 

Comments received after the end of the 

comment period will be considered, if 

possible, but their consideration 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 the 

development of any changes to its 

practice. The Department requires that 

comments be submitted in written form. 

The Department recommends 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 13249 

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 

website 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, email address: webmaster–

support@ita.doc.gov. 

Dated: March 9, 2007. 

David Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–5169 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Survey of 

Information Habits and Preferences of 

Millennial Scientists 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before May 21, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument(s) and instructions should 

be directed to Terrie Wheeler, Assistant 

Chief, Information Services Division, at 

(301) 975–3772, terrie.wheeler@nist.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

This study will determine how the 

next generation of scientists, frequently 

referred to as the Millennial Generation, 

will seek scientific information in their 

research. This generation was born 

between 1982 and 2000. Having grown 

up with information technology, general 

studies show this population has 

technological preferences for receiving 

and integrating content, and this study 

is to learn if this extends to the 

scientific content among young 

scientists. It will identify most useful 

(and most desired) devices and formats, 

so that the Information Services 

Division can plan to serve the next 

generation of scientists. The findings 

will impact how digital scientific 

content is harvested, identified using 

metadata, stored, accessed, and 

disseminated. The project will identify 

young scientists’ preferences for content 

format and ease of assimilation into 

current processes. Specifically the 

project aims to learn: (1) Which library 

resources and information services are 

most valuable and why, and (2) what 

scientific library resources do not exist 

that could, or are not yet robust enough 

to be valuable. Further the study aims 

to learn: (3) In what specific ways are 

commercial Internet tools both 

successful and unsuccessful in helping 

find answers, (4) which platforms and 

devices are most helpful and why, and 

(5) which technologies help support 

collaboration with peers. The project 

plans to use Summer Undergraduate 

Research Fellowship (SURF) students 

who work at the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology every 

summer as the test population. The 

survey is voluntary, and all information 

gathered will be carefully safeguarded. 

II. Method of Collection 

The study will use an electronic 

survey form. SURF students will have 

the URL sent to them in an e-mail 

message so they may take the survey on 

any computer with a Web browser if 

they choose. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: None. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Students enrolled in 

the NIST SURF program for 2007. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

100. 

Estimated Time per Response: 20 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 33. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $0. 

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 also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: March 14, 2007. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–5097 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; West Coast 

Community Economic Data Collection 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before May 21, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES