jurisdiction: US

text: b"U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n International Trade Administration\n\n Import Administration Has Met Most\nStatutory Deadlines on Antidumping Reviews,\n But Management Attention Is Needed\n In Other Areas\n\n\n Final Survey Report No. IPE-16952/March 2005\n\n\n\n\n PUBLIC\n RELEASE\n\n\n\n Office of Inspections and Program Evaluations \n\n\x0c\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS \n\n\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i\n\n\nBACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 \n\n\nOBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY........................................................................ 5 \n\n\nOBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 6 \n\n\n I. \t Most Statutory Deadlines Have Been Met, But Management and Administrative \n\n Controls Should Be Strengthened To Help Ensure Continued Compliance....................... 6 \n\n\n A. \t Most Statutory Deadlines Have Been Met................................................................. 6 \n\n B. \t Management and Administrative Controls Should Be Strengthened ........................ 7 \n\n\n II. Policies, Procedures, and Standards Need Improvement.................................................. 11 \n\n\n A. \t Antidumping Manual Is Outdated and Causes Confusion....................................... 12 \n\n B. \t Internal Operations Handbook Should Be Developed............................................. 12 \n\n C. \t Standard for Verification Reports Is Needed........................................................... 13 \n\n\n III. Management of Official Files Needs Attention ................................................................ 14 \n\n\n A. \t Case Files are Sometimes Incomplete Despite Regulatory Requirements .............. 15 \n\n B. \t Case Files May Be Vulnerable To Fire.................................................................... 17 \n\n C. \t New Document Management System Needed ........................................................ 19 \n\n\n IV. Computer Support Needs Restructuring ........................................................................... 20 \n\n\n V. Training Program for Analysts Should Be Improved ....................................................... 21 \n\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................. 24\n\n\nAPPENDIXES .............................................................................................................................. 26 \n\n\nAPPENDIX A: Types of Antidumping Administrative Reviews ................................................ 26 \n\nAPPENDIX B: Antidumping Investigation Process .................................................................... 27 \n\nAPPENDIX C: Administrative Review Process .......................................................................... 28 \n\nAPPENDIX D: Acronyms ............................................................................................................ 29 \n\nAPPENDIX E: Agency Response ................................................................................................ 30 \n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n\n\n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY \n\n\nThe mission of Import Administration (IA) is to safeguard American industries and jobs against\nunfair trade by determining if foreign products sold in the United States are being \xe2\x80\x9cdumped\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x94\nsold below \xe2\x80\x9cnormal value\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x94 or subsidized by foreign governments. IA accomplishes this by\nconducting investigations of foreign companies or governments at U.S. industry\xe2\x80\x99s request.\n\nIA, particularly its Antidumping and Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD) Operations, is an\norganization in transition. An August 2004 reorganization consolidated AD/CVD operations\nunder one Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS), but the bureau still is sorting out old issues left\nfrom its previous organizational structure. One of the most significant issues, which the bureau\nis still struggling to remedy, is the lack of consistency in its operations. This was one of the\nconcerns of Congress and the impetus for the reorganization.\n\nIn addition, communication between units was poor, and the agency had an institutional\nreluctance to develop common standards, processes, and procedures for IA\xe2\x80\x99s work. IA staff has\nindicated that there is little time to reflect on how to improve the workflow or the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s\ntraining program. All resources currently are dedicated to meeting statutorily mandated\ndeadlines for determinations.\n\nIn September 2004, we conducted a survey of IA\xe2\x80\x99s administrative review process for\nantidumping petitions filed by U.S. companies in order to (1) determine whether IA was meeting\nits statutory requirements; (2) analyze whether there were adequate policies, procedures, and\nguidance in place; (3) identify trends and practices related to administrative reviews; and (4)\nassess the adequacy of management tools and administrative controls used to manage\nadministrative reviews. We also sought to identify areas for future OIG program reviews. Our\nspecific findings are as follows:\n\nMost Statutory Deadlines Have Been Met, But Management and Administrative Controls\nShould Be Strengthened to Help Ensure Continued Compliance. We found that IA was\nmeeting its statutory deadlines for conducting annual administrative reviews for antidumping\ncases most of the time. This represents a significant improvement since our 1993 review of IA\nwhen we found that 32 percent of administrative reviews were late.1 We examined one case\nrecord where a determination was issued 10 business days prior to the statutory deadline. We\nalso note that the bureau extends statutory dates if deadlines fall on weekends in the sample we\nreviewed, although it has no written policy on this practice. We found four instances in our\nsample of 40 cases out of 205 annual administrative reviews conducted in FYs 2003 and 2004\nwhere IA extended its statutory deadlines by one or two days when they fell on a Saturday or\nSunday. The IA Chief Counsel\xe2\x80\x99s Office acknowledges that under a strict interpretation of the\nstatute, IA does not have the flexibility that it currently exercises.\n\n\n\n\n1\n IA's Investigations of Steel Industry Petitions, TTD-5541-4-001, OIG, December 1993\n\n\n i\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nIA has multiple management and administrative controls that make it possible to meet deadlines.\nHowever, we found that those controls could be strengthened, such as by clearly delineating\nmanagement\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities and interim schedules and documenting the review process to\nkeep cases on track to meet statutory deadlines.\n\nIn addition, we found that the Case Management Database (CMD)\xe2\x80\x94 IA's primary system to\ncalculate and track statutory deadlines and provide status updates on cases\xe2\x80\x94 contained\nerroneous information on three case records that we examined in our sample of 40 case records.\nThese errors affected the ability of the system to accurately calculate statutory deadlines.\n\nThe CMD also generates performance data that IA management uses to monitor its compliance\nwith the statute and includes in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Performance Plan. However, we found\nthat the CMD reported as actual performance data the statutory deadlines or target dates rather\nthan the actual dates of signature for determinations. The system is based on the premise that the\ndeterminations will be issued by the statutory deadline, which may not happen. IA\xe2\x80\x99s sole\nperformance measure in the plan is the number of cases it completes within statutory\nrequirements. IA reports that it meets case deadlines 100 percent of the time, although the CMD\ndoes not reconcile the statutory deadline date or target date against the actual signature dates for\ndeterminations. As such, IA cannot be certain that it is always completing its cases on time\nbased on the report generated by the CMD. We noted four instances, as discussed above, when\nIA took one to two extra days beyond its statutory deadline to make its determinations. If IA\nwants to continue using the CMD to generate performance reports for the Department's Annual\nPerformance Plan, it needs to ensure that the report is based on actual signature dates rather than\ntarget dates. There were other discrepancies in the CMD not related to statutory deadlines, such\nas erroneous or incomplete information in case records. IA should ensure that information\nentered into the CMD is accurate and complete and that the records are kept up-to-date.\n\nManagers also are concerned that the IA Chief Counsel's office frequently does not update the\nstatus of litigation on cases in the CMD system, which makes work on administrative reviews\ndifficult for analysts because litigation can affect the case proceedings. The Chief Counsel\xe2\x80\x99s\noffice told us that it is working on a pilot project to provide the updates and hopes to begin\nupdating these records soon (see page 6).\n\nPolicies, Procedures, and Standards Need Improvement. IA has a manual, which includes\nantidumping administrative reviews, that is used by its analysts and the public, but it does not\nreflect actual current practice. IA also does not have adequate written internal guidance or an\ninternal operations handbook that gives its analysts systematic instructions on how to conduct an\nadministrative review. Such internal guidance is needed, in addition to the publicly available\nmanual, to spell out \xe2\x80\x9chow-to\xe2\x80\x9d details of handling cases and addressing important problems that\nmay occur in conducting the reviews. With no written, comprehensive, internal guidance,\nanalysts who encountered problems must ask managers for instructions or try to figure the\nanswers out themselves, which is time consuming and inefficient and can lead to inconsistent\ntreatment of similar issues. IA should update the antidumping manual and develop an internal\noperations handbook. While we did not review the CVD administrative review process, we note\nthat there is no CVD manual for either the analysts or the public.\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nIn addition, IA needs to adopt a standard template for the content and format for verification\nreports and incorporate it into the internal operations handbook. Verification reports confirm\nIA\xe2\x80\x99s findings with respect to the accuracy and completeness of questionnaire responses from\nforeign firms. We found that different offices have adopted different templates and styles for the\nreports. Two predominant styles prevail in IA \xe2\x80\x93 a highly detailed format vs. an abbreviated\nversion with the basic findings. IA needs to adopt a common standard for verification reports,\nwhich would improve consistency, quality, and efficiency (see page 11).\n\nManagement of Official Files Needs Attention. We found that IA does not adequately\nmaintain official case files, which are stored in the Central Records Unit (CRU). Files vary\ngreatly in terms of their completeness. Missing documents could negatively impact the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s defense of an IA determination on duty margins should a case go to court.\n\nFor example, disks containing electronic media files, such as data sets and margin calculations,\nare considered part of the official files but are stored in the Office of Information Technology.\nIA\xe2\x80\x99s internal policy, which is not being enforced, requires that its data sets and margin\ncalculations consistently be stored in this office. We found that 62.5 percent of 2003 case files\nand 53.3 percent of 2004 case files in our sample of 24 out of the 40 case records we reviewed\nwere missing data sets and margin calculations.2 IA needs to ensure that all data and relevant\nrecords are being stored in the CRU and the IT office.\n\nWe also found that the official files stored in the CRU in the basement of the Herbert C. Hoover\nBuilding (Commerce headquarters) are vulnerable to fire because the CRU, which has only two\nfire extinguishers, does not have an automatic fire suppression system. Departmental\nAdministrative Order (DAO) 205-1 on vital records3 requires that official files be safeguarded\nthrough duplication. In addition, Federal Preparedness Circular 65 on the continuity of\noperations (COOP), dated June 15, 2004, calls for federal agencies to have access to electronic\nand hard copies of vital records in case of an emergency. The International Trade\nAdministration recently purchased an electronic document management system for IA, which\nwould facilitate duplication of official case files. IA estimates the project will be completed by\nlate 2005. IA should take the actions necessary to comply with vital records regulations by\nimplementing the system as soon as possible (see page 14).\n\nComputer Support Needs Restructuring. IA\xe2\x80\x99s computer support staff is still divided into three\nteams reporting to three different managers based on the previous IA organizational structure.\nHaving the computer support staff report to one manager could help improve consistency in\nservice and support and facilitate the best allocation of resources. IA should review the current\nstructure of its computer support staff and determine how the staff can best meet the needs of the\norganization in light of the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s recent reorganization (see page 20).\n\n\n\n2\n We did not include cases that were rescinded, as the IT office does not keep data sets and calculations on those \n\ncases. \n\n3\n The definition of vital records includes \xe2\x80\x9cthose records essential to protect the rights and interests of the Department\n\nand of individuals affected by its activities.\xe2\x80\x9d \n\n\n\n iii\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nAnalyst Training Program Should Be Improved. IA offers three training modules, primarily\nfor new analysts: new analyst training, verification, and statistical analysis software training.\nThere is no formalized training program for existing analysts. New analysts say they are\noverwhelmed by the amount of information given in the existing training classes. More\nexperienced analysts complain about a lack of continuing professional and career development\ntraining. IA should reassess its training program to ensure that it meets the needs of its analysts,\nparticularly in light of the large number of new recruits that will need to be hired to fill vacancies\nin the bureau (see Figure 6 and page 21).\n\nIssue on the Horizon: China Group Resources - The workload of the new China/Non-Market\nEconomy (NME) group is growing rapidly. A significant increase in Chinese companies\nrequesting new shipper reviews is expected to put a heavy strain on IA. Management should\ncarefully monitor the workload to determine whether staff resources need to be reallocated to\nhelp handle this group\xe2\x80\x99s workload (see page 21).\n\nOn page 24, we offer a number of recommendations to address our concerns.\n\n\n\nITA and its Import Administration concurred with nearly all of our recommendations. ITA\xe2\x80\x99s\nChief Financial Officer and Director of Administration indicated that she welcomed the draft\nreport and that \xe2\x80\x9cthe Import Administration is taking steps to address the recommendations and\nITA will continue to make additional improvements.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nITA\xe2\x80\x99s response, which included IA\xe2\x80\x99s detailed comments on the report, outlined several steps that\nhave already been taken to strengthen the Import Administration\xe2\x80\x99s management of its\nadministrative review process. In addition, ITA outlined steps that IA planned to take to address\nour concerns. ITA took issue with our recommendation on the need to formulate a standard for\nverification reports. While ITA agreed that a standard may be desirable, it indicated that\nverification reports vary greatly in methodology and content. Our response to its reply on this\nissue can be found on page 14 of the report. ITA also took issue with our finding that IA missed\nstatutory deadlines that fall on a weekend, although it did agree to issue a public clarification of\nits longstanding practice of deferring those statutory deadlines for case determinations to the next\nbusiness day. Our response on this issue is available on page 7 of this report.\n\nWe discuss ITA\xe2\x80\x99s response to our findings and recommendations in greater detail following each\nsection in this report. ITA\xe2\x80\x99s entire response to our draft report begins on page 30.\n\n\n\n\n iv\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n BACKGROUND \n\n\nThe mission of Import Administration (IA) is to safeguard American industries and jobs against\nunfair trade by determining if foreign products sold in the United States are 1) being subsidized\nby foreign governments or 2) sold at less than \xe2\x80\x9cnormal value,\xe2\x80\x9d a practice otherwise known as\n\xe2\x80\x9cdumping.\xe2\x80\x9d IA works to counter these practices by imposing additional customs duties on goods\nsubsidized or dumped in the United States. The Secretary of Commerce administers the\ncountry\xe2\x80\x99s antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) laws pursuant to the Tariff Act of\n1930, as amended. The Secretary has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Import\nAdministration sole authority to issue AD or CVD determinations based upon the results of\nadministrative reviews as mandated by AD or CVD orders. (Figure 1 shows the number of AD\nand CVD administrative reviews conducted during FYs 2003 and 2004.) More than 80 percent\nof administrative reviews conducted in FYs 2003 and 2004 were AD administrative reviews.\n\n\nFigure 1: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, FYs 2003-2004\n\n\n FY 2003 FY 2004\n 17 (10.76%) 24 (15.09%)\n\n\n\n\n 141 (89.24%) 135 (84.91%)\n\n\n\n\n Antidumping Countervailing\n\n Source: Import Administration\n\n\nIA conducts several types of AD administrative reviews, which include annual, new shipper,\nsunset, and anticircumvention reviews, as well as reviews based on changed circumstances\nreported by U.S. and/or foreign companies. (See Appendix A: Types of Antidumping\nAdministrative Reviews). The majority of those conducted are annual administrative reviews and\nthey are the focus of our survey.\n\nAD Investigations. Before an annual administrative review is conducted, an investigation,\nwhich results in an antidumping duty order, must take place. Investigations begin when U.S.\ncompanies or other \xe2\x80\x9cinterested parties,\xe2\x80\x9d such as labor unions and trade associations, petition the\nU.S. government to investigate allegations of dumping or subsidization by foreign companies or\ngovernments and to impose antidumping or countervailing duties to counteract these practices.\nCompanies submit a single petition to IA and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).\n\n\n 1\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nBoth IA and ITC conduct independent investigations. IA determines whether dumping has\noccurred and calculates a dumping margin as appropriate. ITC determines whether the U.S.\nindustry is being or may be \xe2\x80\x9cmaterially injured\xe2\x80\x9d by the practice. IA always conducts a foreign\nverification in an investigation and might visit U.S. companies during this period.\n\nAfter investigations are complete, the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration may direct\nthat an AD order be issued if (1) it is determined that dumping has occurred and (2) ITC finds\nthat the U.S. industry was materially injured or is threatened with material injury. Orders are\nissued only if both determinations are affirmative. An order directs U.S. Customs and Border\nProtection to require importers to pay cash deposits of the import\xe2\x80\x99s prescribed duty margin\npending a final assessment, which is made following annual reviews. An order allows the U.S.\nindustry or another interested party (exporter or importer) to request an annual administrative\nreview, beginning one year after the order is issued for up to five years. (See Appendix B:\nAntidumping Investigation Process). If no one requests a review, the prescribed duty margin\nfrom the previous period of review becomes the final duty assessment for the review period.\n\nAnnual AD Administrative Review Process. Twelve months after an order is issued, an\ninterested party may petition IA to conduct a review to determine a final assessment of the duty\nmargin. After initiating a review, IA analysts send out detailed questionnaires to foreign\ncompanies and study the information returned to arrive at a preliminary determination.4 Analysts\nmay also conduct verification trips to the home markets of foreign companies and their U.S.\nsubsidiaries, if any. These trips typically last 1 to 2 weeks and a verification report is issued on\ntheir findings. After about 1 year (barring any extensions as allowed by the statute), IA issues a\nfinal determination, which sets the final assessment of duties for the period under review and\nrevises the cash deposit rate on future imports. (See Appendix C: Administrative Review\nProcess).\n\nEach IA determination, preliminary and final, undergoes an internal concurrence process that\nincludes the IA Chief Counsel\xe2\x80\x99s Office, the DAS for Policy and Negotiations, the DAS for\nAD/CVD Operations, and, finally, the Assistant Secretary. A determination takes effect upon the\nAssistant Secretary\xe2\x80\x99s signature and is published soon after in the Federal Register.\n\nAnnual administrative reviews may continue for another 4 years. After an order has been in place\nfor five years, IA conducts a separate \xe2\x80\x9csunset\xe2\x80\x9d review to determine whether to revoke the order\nor continue the order for an additional 5-year period if it concludes that dumping persists (in\nconjunction with an affirmative ITC determination of material injury to U.S. industry).\n\nStatutory Deadlines. IA operates under specific statutory deadlines for completing annual AD\nadministrative reviews. Title 19, Section 1675 of the U.S. Code states that preliminary\ndeterminations for annual administrative reviews must be issued \xe2\x80\x9cwithin 245 days after the last\nday of the month [in] which occurs the anniversary of the date of publication of the order or\nsuspension agreement for which the review under paragraph (1) is requested.\xe2\x80\x9d Final\n\n4\n For ease of understanding, we use the term \xe2\x80\x9cpreliminary determinations\xe2\x80\x9dor \xe2\x80\x9cfinal determinations,\xe2\x80\x9d which is\nterminology used to describe decisions made during an investigation, rather than the term \xe2\x80\x9cpreliminary results\xe2\x80\x9d or\n\xe2\x80\x9cfinal results,\xe2\x80\x9d which is normally used to describe decisions made during an administrative review.\n\n\n 2\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\ndeterminations must be issued \xe2\x80\x9cwithin 120 days after the date on which the preliminary\ndetermination is published.\xe2\x80\x9d (See Appendix C: Administrative Review Process).\n\nThe statute also provides for extensions of preliminary and final determinations up to an\nadditional 180 days. Preliminary determinations may be extended a maximum of 120 days. In\nsuch an instance, the final determination may only be extended 60 days. However, if the\npreliminary determination extension is less than 120 days, then the difference between that actual\nextension and the maximum number of days allowed (120) for a preliminary determination may\nbe added to the maximum number of days allowed for an extension of a final determination, if\nneeded.\n\nIn FY 2003, 43.3 percent of annual AD administrative reviews received extensions, compared\nwith 50.5 percent in FY 2004. Figure 2 shows a breakdown of extensions for preliminary and\nfinal determinations during AD administrative reviews in FYs 2003 and 2004.\n\nFigure 2: Extensions Received During FYs 2003 and 2004\n\n FY 2003 FY 2004\n\n 40 36 60 52\n 35 50\n 30\n 25 21 40\n 20 30 25\n 15 10 20\n 10 6\n 10 3 5\n 5\n 0 0\n Prelim inary Final Prelim inary Final\n\n 1 \xe2\x80\x93 60 days 61 \xe2\x80\x93 120 days\n\n Source: Import Administration\n\nIA Document Management. During each review, analysts are required to use IA\xe2\x80\x99s Case\nManagement Database (CMD) to enter information about the case proceedings. That information\nis used by IA to generate internal status reports and to calculate compliance data to report to\nCongress. Analysts also are required to archive public, proprietary, and government documents\ngenerated during a review into IA\xe2\x80\x99s Central Records Unit (CRU). IA\xe2\x80\x99s regulations require that\nthe CRU \xe2\x80\x9cmaintain an official and public record for each antidumping and countervailing duty\nproceeding\xe2\x80\x9d and that the public records be made available for public inspection.5\n\nReorganization. In August 2004, IA reorganized its operations as a part of an overall\nInternational Trade Administration reorganization. IA indicated that this was done, in part, at the\nurging of Congress, which had expressed concern about consistency within the bureau, the\n\n5\n 19 CFR 351.103(a), 104(b)\n\n\n 3\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\neffectiveness of its work (particularly in countries such as China), and its investigative fieldwork.\nPrior to this, IA had three Deputy Assistant Secretaries (DAS) for Antidumping and\nCountervailing Duty (AD/CVD) Operations reporting to the Assistant Secretary. Each DAS\ndirected three offices with individual computer support teams supporting each DAS group.\nUnder the new organizational structure, the three former DAS groups now report to one DAS. In\naddition, a new China/Non-Market Economy (NME) group, headed by a senior coordinator, was\ncreated out of two of the existing operations offices. IA also created the position of DAS for\nPolicy and Negotiations (see Figure 3).\n\n\n Figure 3: IA Organizational Structure (as of August 2004)\n\n\n\n\n Source: Import Administration\n\n\nIA is currently working to sort out issues from its previous organizational structure. One of the\ninitiatives that it has launched is to improve consistency of certain procedures and policies within\nits operations unit. For instance, prior to the reorganization, each DAS group used a different\nquestionnaire for respondents. Because computer support teams worked for different DAS\ngroups, each DAS group used a slightly different computer program to calculate dumping\nmargins. Finally, each DAS group adopted a different schedule to vet margin calculations that\nare reviewed by a calculation review panel. There are other inconsistent practices in the bureau,\nwhich we discuss later in the report, that also need the attention of management.\n\n\n\n 4\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY \n\n\nThe Office of Inspector General conducted this survey in accordance with the Quality Standards\nfor Inspections issued by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency and under the\nauthority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and Departmental Organization\nOrder 10-13, dated May 22, 1980, as amended.\n\nThe primary objectives of the survey were to assess IA\xe2\x80\x99s management of its administrative\nreview process, and evaluate the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with applicable statutes and regulations.\nSpecifically, we sought to:\n\n Analyze the administrative review process, policies, procedures, and guidance in place,\n and examine compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements which pertain to\n administrative reviews;\n Identify trends or practices related to the administrative review process;\n Develop a profile and review data related to administrative reviews, including total cases,\n timing, deadlines, and country and industry trends, etc;\n Identify management tools and administrative controls used to manage administrative\n reviews; and,\n Identify areas for future OIG program reviews.\n\nWe performed our fieldwork for this survey from September 14 to November 3, 2004. To\naccomplish our objectives, we interviewed IA managers and team members who conduct\nadministrative reviews; examined documentation related to IA\xe2\x80\x99s administrative review process,\nincluding laws and regulations and internal procedures; and assessed management and\nadministrative controls used to manage the administrative review process. We also examined\nsamples of antidumping reviews produced during FYs 2003 and 2004 by each of IA\xe2\x80\x99s nine\noffices in AD/CVD operations. During the review, we briefed IA managers on our work and\ninitial findings. At the conclusion of our review, we discussed our findings with former\nAssistant Secretary for Import Administration and other key IA managers.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS \n\n\nI. \t Most Statutory Deadlines Have Been Met, But Management and Administrative\n Controls Should Be Strengthened To Help Ensure Continued Compliance\n\nWe found that IA was meeting most of its statutory deadlines for conducting annual AD\nadministrative reviews based on our sample with a few minor exceptions for deadlines that fall\non a weekend. While management controls help IA meet statutory deadlines, they are not\ndocumented. In addition, we found administrative control problems with the case records in IA's\nCase Management Database (CMD), the primary tracking system for statutory deadlines, and its\nperformance reports, which are based on information generated from the CMD.\n\n A. Most Statutory Deadlines Have Been Met\n\nIA managers and analysts indicate that they have a long organizational history of meeting\nstatutory deadlines for annual administrative reviews. They say that there is no other option than\nto meet them. During interviews, we found an organizational culture of compliance, and\nmanagers say no one wants to be the first to miss a statutory deadline, so everyone will do\nwhatever it takes to meet it.\n\nOur review of a sample of 20 percent of annual AD administrative reviews completed in FY\n2003 (19 cases) and FY 2004 (21 cases) revealed that IA met most of their statutory deadlines\nfor annual reviews. This represented a marked improvement since our 1993 review of IA when\nwe found that 32 percent of administrative reviews were late. In one instance, we found that IA\nissued a determination 10 business days before the required statutory date. We also note four\ninstances when IA missed the statutory deadline by one or two days. In all four instances, which\ndo not represent serious deviations, the statutory deadline fell on either a Saturday or a Sunday.\nAs a result, IA issued its determinations \xe2\x80\x94 up to two days beyond the statutory deadline\xe2\x80\x94 on\nthe following business day.\n\n Figure 4: Sample Size and Deviations of Statutory Deadlines\n FY 2003 FY 2004\n Number of Annual AD\n Administrative Reviews 97 108\n Completed\n Number of Cases in\n 19 21\n Sample\n Deviation # 1: Final 1 day\n Determinations (Sunday deadline)\n 1 day\n Deviation # 2: Prelim\n (Sunday deadline)\n 2 days\n Deviation # 3: Prelim\n (Saturday deadline)\n 2 days\n Deviation # 4: Prelim\n (Saturday deadline)\n Source: IA Case Management Database (CMD), 09/30/04\n\n\n 6\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n\n\nAccording to IA management, deferring weekend deadlines for case determinations to the next\nbusiness day has been an accepted practice for many years. However, this is not an official\npolicy and is not documented or disclosed on IA\xe2\x80\x99s website. On two of the four occasions when\ndeviations from statutory deadlines occurred, IA had already applied for the maximum 180 days\nextensions allowed by the statute. In addition, IA did not amend its Federal Register notices to\nreflect the actual business day that the preliminary or final determination would be made, but\npublished the original statutory deadline date, which fell on a weekend.\n\nThe IA Chief Counsel\xe2\x80\x99s office acknowledged that there is no additional flexibility provided\nunder a strict interpretation of the statute. The statute uses the terms \xe2\x80\x9cwithin\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cno later than\xe2\x80\x9d\nwhen prescribing statutory deadlines. When we debriefed the former IA Assistant Secretary on\nour survey findings, he indicated that it would be prudent for IA to notify the public through a\nFederal Register notice of its current practice of extending deadlines that fall on the weekend to\nthe next business day.\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA should determine how to address the issue of statutory deadlines for\nannual AD administrative reviews that fall on weekends.\n\n\n\nIn response to our draft report, the ITA CFO indicated that IA would issue a public clarification\n(either through notice in the Federal Register and/or on its website) of its longstanding practice\nof deferring statutory deadlines that fall on a weekend for case determinations to the next\nbusiness day. We note that the issuance of a Federal Register notice will formalize its\nlongstanding practice into policy and provide public notice of the policy. IA\xe2\x80\x99s planned action\nwill meet the intent of our recommendation. Once we receive a copy of the Federal Register\nnotice and/or confirmation that the policy is on its website, we will close out the\nrecommendation.\n\nIA also indicated that it does not agree with our finding that it has missed certain of its statutory\ndeadlines that fall on a weekend (see ITA response to recommendation # 4). IA emphasized that\nthere is a general federal policy that allows deadlines falling on weekends or legal holidays to be\nextended until the following working day though it did not cite what that policy is. It indicated\nthat its practice is consistent with IA\xe2\x80\x99s regulation, 19 C.F.R. 351.303(b). We note that this\nregulation concerns \xe2\x80\x9call persons submitting documents to the Department for consideration in an\nantidumping or countervailing duty proceeding.\xe2\x80\x9d It does not address whether the Department,\nwhich serves the public, has the same privileges. Regardless, the actions that IA has outlined\nabove will meet the intent of our recommendation.\n\n\n B. Management and Administrative Controls Should Be Strengthened\n\nWe found that management and administrative controls enable the bureau to meet its statutory\ndeadlines, but they should be strengthened.\n\n\n\n 7\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nDocumentation of Management Controls Would Strengthen the Process. During interviews\nwith IA staff, we found multiple management controls that help the bureau meet its statutory\nobligations. First, program managers and office directors provide different degrees of monitoring\nsuch as maintaining project timelines to track cases and being aware of upcoming statutory\ndeadlines. Second, weekly status reports on upcoming deadlines are generated by senior\nmanagement from the CMD and distributed to office directors and program managers. Weekly\nstatus reports are the subject of staff meetings, and the DAS raises any issues on upcoming cases,\nif any, prior to deadlines. Finally, special assistants in the office of the DAS for AD/CVD\nOperations contact office directors one to two weeks before a statutory deadline to inquire about\nthe status of a case. All these steps in the process help ensure compliance, but the process is not\ndocumented nor is there any set schedule to present cases for a decision on determinations to the\nDAS\xe2\x80\x99 and Assistant Secretary\xe2\x80\x99s offices.\n\nThe Office of Management and Budget\xe2\x80\x99s Circular A-123 (revised June 21, 1995) states that \xe2\x80\x9cthe\ndocumentation for transactions, management controls, and other significant events must be clear\nand readily available for examination.\xe2\x80\x9d Documenting management controls helps ensure that an\nagency\xe2\x80\x99s objectives are being met by clarifying each person\xe2\x80\x99s role and responsibilities and\ncreating standards for a process. Doing so would increase transparency and allow all\nstakeholders in the process to understand their roles and responsibilities.\n\nThe AD/CVD Operations Coordinator told us that IA has recently developed a new concurrence\nprocess for case decisions on margin determinations. The coordinator hopes this will advance\ninternal deadlines for more timely approvals. This is a positive step in standardizing the\nconcurrence process, but we believe that the internal procedures, roles, and responsibilities for\nthe entire administrative review process should be documented to increase transparency and\nbenchmark performance. Such action also will be necessary if IA implements the new document\nmanagement software discussed on page 19. New analysts told us that they would like to see\nwritten procedures that guide them through the different phases of an annual administrative\nreview, including the concurrence process.\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA should document (1) the management control process for meeting\ninternal and statutory deadlines and (2) the roles and responsibilities of IA staff involved\nthroughout the entire annual administrative review process.\n\n\n\nIn its response, ITA noted that IA Operations recently underwent a major reorganization,\nmelding three existing office groups into one overseen by a single DAS for Operations. As a\nresult of those changes, the new DAS for Operations was already aware of the issues identified\nby the OIG and had put a process in place to address them. It indicated that a new concurrence\nprocess was established on January 10, 2005. We noted this in our draft report and indicated that\nthis was a positive step in standardizing the concurrence process. We further noted that the draft\nconcurrence process document needed to be finalized. We would appreciate an update on the\nstatus of the concurrence process as a part of the action plan.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nIn addition, IA\xe2\x80\x99s comments on our draft report indicated that the DAS for Operations has set up a\nprocedure to monitor the ability of its offices to meet the deadlines outlined in the concurrence\nprocess. IA also agreed that more explicit information about the roles and responsibilities of\nanalysts is needed and it will be detailed in its new operations handbook or the revised\nantidumping manual. We request further information on the new procedures adopted by the\nDAS\xe2\x80\x99 office and a copy of the guidance issued in either the operations handbook or antidumping\nmanual to describe the roles and responsibilities of analysts.\n\n\nCase Management Database Sometimes Contains Erroneous and Incomplete Information.\nThroughout the antidumping review process, analysts are required to enter case information\n(such as the initiation date commencing the annual review and statutory extensions) into IA\xe2\x80\x99s\nCMD, which serves as an important administrative control for meeting statutory deadlines.6 By\nentering the information and keeping it up-to-date, IA analysts, office directors, and senior\nmanagement can keep track of case proceedings so that appropriate and timely approvals are\nmade. In addition, managers can ensure that cases are being conducted according to established\nprocedures and project timelines. We observed in our fieldwork that in several instances the\ndirector of the Office of Information Technology was correcting entries to individual case\nrecords and calling analysts to notify them of errors. We note that analysts do not receive formal\ntraining on using and entering information into the CMD, but instead learn how to use the system\nfrom program managers or colleagues. If program managers or colleagues are not using the\nsystem properly, then analysts may perpetuate their errors. (see discussion on training on\npage 21). In our sample of cases, we found instances where information was either wrong or\nincomplete:\n\n Incorrect Statutory Deadlines. We found one case where either the program manager\n or case analyst entered a preliminary extension of 115 days and a final extension of 120\n days equaling 235 days, thus exceeding the statutory maximum of 180 days for\n extensions. This caused the CMD to calculate an incorrect statutory deadline.\n Fortunately, the statutory deadline was recalculated (though not by the CMD) when the\n Federal Register notice was issued. The accuracy of the CMD is dependent on the\n accuracy of the information entered. We found two instances in which analysts\n manipulated the CMD by entering unofficial extension days (there is a formal process to\n file extensions requiring DAS approval) to cause the CMD to generate a statutory\n deadline on a weekday rather than a weekend. One analyst entered negative extension\n days (e.g. \xe2\x80\x9313) to cause the system to generate an earlier statutory deadline that would\n fall on a weekday. IA could consider adding parameters to these fields to prevent\n analysts from entering incorrect or unapproved statutory deadline extensions.\n Comments Field. Not all analysts use the comments field to record the status of the\n case, as required by IA management. Some records provide more detailed information\n than others, such as details on rescissions, customs instructions, etc. In the sample cases\n we examined, the comments field in more than half of them was unused. An up-to-date\n record would allow IA management and managers to know the status of a case without\n\n\n6\n This requirement is part of each analyst\xe2\x80\x99s performance plan.\n\n\n 9\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n having to track down a case analyst if there are inquiries from the Department or from\n respondents and petitioners of antidumping reviews.\n Computer Backup. Over 92 percent of the CMD records we reviewed did not contain\n the dates when case backup data was sent to IT for archiving.\n\nIA uses information from the CMD for a number of purposes such as creating weekly and\nmonthly internal tracking reports, calculating the statutory deadlines for case proceedings, and\ngenerating performance data used in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Performance Plan. If erroneous\ninformation is entered into CMD, the system does not accurately calculate statutory deadlines. In\naddition, the system is not as useful when records are not up-to-date.\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA managers should ensure that analysts (1) enter accurate information into\nthe CMD; and 2) maintain complete and up-to-date case records in the CMD. These\nrequirements should be included in an operations handbook.\n\n\n\nIn its comments on our draft report, ITA indicated that IA agreed with this recommendation. IA\nstated that it would draft instructions for updating the CMD that would include the roles and\nresponsibilities of analysts, team leaders, and managers and would make the instructions\navailable in the database itself and in IA training materials. A CMD element will also be\nincluded in IA\xe2\x80\x99s future training. We would appreciate receiving a copy of these instructions and,\nupon our receipt and review of them, will consider this recommendation to be closed.\n\n\nPerformance Reports Are Not Based on Actual Performance Data. The Government\nPerformance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires the heads of all U.S. government\nagencies to submit a yearly report on program performance for the previous fiscal year. In the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan, IA\xe2\x80\x99s performance is measured by the\npercentage of AD/CVD cases completed within statutory deadlines. In that report, IA reported\nthat 100% of its cases were completed on time for FY 2002.7 IA managers also told us that IA\nhas consistently achieved a 100% on-time completion rate. However, we found that IA\xe2\x80\x99s\nperformance report, which is another important management control tool, is not based on valid\nperformance data because the CMD does not report actual signature dates for determinations,\nonly target statutory deadlines. If IA wants to continue using the CMD to generate its\nperformance reports for the Department's Annual Performance Plan, its system must contain\nactual performance data.\n\nCMD records contain fields for preliminary determination and final determination signature\ndates calculated based on a review\xe2\x80\x99s initiation date. The system calculates these target dates\nbased on statutorily mandated timeframes. For instance, a preliminary determination must be\nmade within 245 days unless there is an extension. But the actual signature date is not recorded.\nRather the CMD data reflects the target dates generated by the system itself and not the dates\n\n7\n The latest available information in the FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan on this performance measure is for\nFY 2002.\n\n\n 10\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nwhen determinations are actually signed. As mentioned before, we found four instances where\ndeterminations were signed one or two days after the CMD\xe2\x80\x93determined signature dates. In those\ncases, the determinations were signed on the next business day because the statutory date fell on\na weekend. (See discussion on page 6). Therefore, IA managers cannot be certain that\nperformance data generated by CMD is accurate.\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA should use actual and not estimated performance data when the bureau\nis reporting its performance results for the Department's Annual Performance Plan.\n\n\n\nIn its response to our recommendation, ITA disagreed with our finding that IA has missed certain\nstatutory deadlines that fall on a weekend. However, this recommendation did not address the\nissue of whether statutory deadlines were missed, but instead dealt with the CMD\xe2\x80\x99s technical\ncapabilities. Currently, the CMD does not record the actual dates when final determinations are\nsigned and the system does not compare this date to the statutory deadline date. Instead, the\nperformance data generated by the system lists the number of administrative reviews conducted\nand assumes that all statutory deadlines were met. Therefore, the performance data generated by\nthe system for use in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Performance Plan may not be accurate. However,\nITA indicated that IA intends to ensure that the CMD reflects the statutory deadline, actual\ndeadline (when a statutory deadline falls on a weekend or holiday), and the signature date, if it\ndiffers from the actual deadline. Based on this reply, we presume that IA intends to reprogram\nthe CMD to record dates for statutory deadlines, actual deadlines, and the signature dates. In\naddition, we presume that the system shall compare statutory deadlines to the actual deadlines\nand/or signature dates when a performance report is generated for the Annual Performance Plan.\nWe would appreciate a clarification of IA\xe2\x80\x99s intended action on this recommendation in the action\nplan.\n\n\nCurrent Status of Litigation Should Be in CMD. On another matter associated with the CMD,\nmanagers are concerned that the IA Chief Counsel's office frequently does not update the status\nof litigation on cases in the system. This makes work difficult for analysts working on annual\nadministrative reviews because litigation on a particular annual administrative review can affect\nthe case proceedings. The Chief Counsel\xe2\x80\x99s Office indicates it is working on a pilot project to\nprovide litigation updates and hopes to begin updating these records soon.\n\n\nII. Policies, Procedures, and Standards Need Improvement\n\nWe found that IA\xe2\x80\x99s antidumping manual is outdated and contains information confusing to both\nanalysts and the public. In addition, IA lacks a single, internal operations handbook with detailed\nguidance on how analysts should conduct their annual AD administrative reviews and on other\ninternal procedures, processes, reports, and guidelines. Finally, our examination of verification\nreports shows marked differences in how the reports appeared in content and format, which\naffects the quality of some reports.\n\n\n\n 11\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nA. Antidumping Manual Is Outdated and Causes Confusion\n\nIA\xe2\x80\x99s antidumping manual, which is used by IA analysts and the public, describes major elements\nof an annual AD administrative review and provides general information on the AD review\nprocess and how these reviews are conducted. However, since it was published on\nJanuary 22, 1998, several policy bulletins and court decisions have been issued, and now the\nmanual is outdated. Furthermore, team leaders and senior analysts told us the manual is used by\nnew analysts as a reference source. But since it does not reflect current IA policies and practices,\nit is confusing as a reference source. The IA Chief Counsel\xe2\x80\x99s Office told us the manual could be\nmore misleading than helpful to the public. It is available through IA\xe2\x80\x99s website and its\ninformation management system.8\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA should update the antidumping manual for its analysts and the public.\n\n\n\nResponding to our draft report, IA agreed with our recommendation that its antidumping manual\nshould be updated to reflect changes in IA practices, although it noted that it was never meant to\nbe a \xe2\x80\x9chow-to\xe2\x80\x9d manual for the general public. IA intends to form a group of experienced\nindividuals within IA to undertake this project. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the\nrevised antidumping manual when it is available. At such time, we will consider this\nrecommendation to be closed.\n\n\n B. Internal Operations Handbook Should Be Developed\n\nAlthough its antidumping manual contains general information on annual administrative reviews\nand tells the public what they can expect when they file a petition that initiates such reviews, IA\nlacks an internal operations handbook with detailed guidelines and systematic instructions on\nhow analysts and IA conduct an annual administrative review, definitions of staff roles and\nresponsibilities in the concurrence process, and bureau practices. We could not find any\ndocument containing such information in a concise and easy-to-use format. Instead, analysts said\nthey access multiple sources of information, such as policy bulletins, guidance contained in IA\xe2\x80\x99s\ninformation management system, advice from managers and colleagues, and different parts of\nthe antidumping manual, in order to conduct an annual administrative review. In addition, lack\nof clear, written guidance on routine problems could lead to inconsistent treatment of similar\nsituations. They said the time spent to find the information is time consuming and inefficient.\nAnalysts we spoke with indicate they would benefit from a concise operations handbook for\nconducting annual administrative reviews that would incorporate IA's written guidance and\nundocumented practices. For example, most analysts knew about the practice of informing\nparties of preliminary and final determinations on cases by noon of the next business day though\nthere is no written guidance on this. We note that an internal operations handbook, which\noutlines the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s practices, may be helpful to new analysts.\n\n\n8\n IA does not have a CVD manual for its analysts or the public.\n\n\n 12\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nIn addition, analysts would like greater transparency on work rules, such as the criteria IA uses to\ngrant compensatory time. Analysts say that different managers use different criteria to grant\ncompensatory time for work conducted outside normal hours at headquarters because the policy\nis unclear and subject to individual interpretation. Analysts we interviewed indicate that\ncompensatory time is never granted on overseas verifications for time worked beyond the normal\n8-hour workday.\n\nGAO\xe2\x80\x99s manual on \xe2\x80\x9cStandards for Internal Control in the Federal Government\xe2\x80\x9d (GAO/AIMD-00\n21.3.1) indicates that \xe2\x80\x9cinternal control activities help ensure that management\xe2\x80\x99s directives are\ncarried out.\xe2\x80\x9d Control activities are defined as \xe2\x80\x9cpolicies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms\nthat enforce management\xe2\x80\x99s directives . . ..\xe2\x80\x9d An internal operations handbook would improve the\nguidance provided to analysts on the organization\xe2\x80\x99s procedures and standards. Without it, new\nanalysts joining IA do not know the practices of the organization and have to rely on team\nmembers or their program managers for guidance. Lack of written operating procedures also\nincreases the possibility that policies and procedures will not be consistently observed\nthroughout the operations division. During our exit conference with senior IA officials, they\nsuggested that both the internal operations handbook and the publicly available antidumping\nmanual could be Web-based to make it easier to keep them current.\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA should develop and maintain an updated internal operations handbook\nto formalize current bureau practices into written policies and guidelines and make the handbook\naccessible to all employees through IA\xe2\x80\x99s portal on the ITA intranet.\n\n\n\nIn its response, ITA indicated that it agreed that a web-based internal operations handbook on\ncurrent procedures and practices would be extremely useful to all IA employees. According to\nIA, its recent effort to develop a revised concurrence process is a first step in this process, and IA\nintends to begin working on a plan to develop a complete handbook. Upon our receipt of a copy\nof the completed handbook, we will consider this recommendation to be closed.\n\n\n C. Standard for Verification Reports Is Needed\n\nVerification reports confirm IA\xe2\x80\x99s findings during an investigation. Our examination of\nverification reports of selected cases revealed marked differences in how the reports appeared in\ncontent and format. Analysts said there is no standard for verification reports. IA management\nconfirmed this and told us each office uses a different template for verification reports. Analysts\nsay there are also stylistic differences in the reports. We found that two predominant styles\nprevail in IA\xe2\x80\x94 one is a highly detailed account of the verification and the interaction with the\nrespondent, and the other is a more abbreviated version with the findings. Analysts say both\nversions should include basic information, such as corporate structure and accounting practices.\nOf the four reports we examined in detail, one did not contain the basic information noted above.\n\nThe lack of a standard results in varying degrees of report quality. Individual preferences of\nprogram managers and office directors determine the report style used. One analyst said when\n\n\n 13\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nshe moved from one IA office to another, she had to learn a different format and style of writing\nverification reports.\n\nIA is in the process of improving the consistency of its questionnaires, computer programs used\nto calculate dumping margins, and how it uses its calculation review panels. Management should\nalso standardize verification reports, particularly the style and basic content of the report.\nAnalysts who use the all inclusive verification format might be spending unnecessary time and\neffort to produce an overly detailed report. On the other hand, analysts who use the abbreviated\nstyle might not be putting enough details into their verification reports. A weak verification\nreport could result in an incorrect determination on dumping, which could jeopardize the\ninterests of U.S. industry. We note that our 1993 report on IA highlighted similar deficiencies in\nverification reports, including the lack of quality control and inconsistent standards.9\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA management needs to formulate a standard for verification reports to\nimprove the quality and consistency of the reports and enable analysts to complete the reports\nmore efficiently.\n\n\n\nIn its comments on our draft report, ITA indicated that IA did not agree with our\nrecommendation. While IA agrees that a standard format for verification reports may be\ndesirable, it indicated that not all verifications are the same because the detail and scope of each\nreport will vary. As such, IA said that it is not possible to have a standard format. However, we\ncontinue to see the benefits of standardizing the format of these reports. While we agree that\neach verification report will be different in terms of coverage and content because of the issues in\nquestion, the basic elements of a verification report should be the same for the organization. If a\ntopic, such as corporate structure and accounting practices, has been covered in a previous\nverification, the report can refer readers to the previous report by indicating that there is no\nupdate and cite the year and date of the previous report. A common format would also allow\nmanagers to quickly review verification reports for accuracy and content, and to determine\nwhether updates are necessary. In addition, a common format would allow for easier\ninformation sharing with managers and analysts from other offices, particularly when much of\nIA\xe2\x80\x99s work is based on precedent. Finally, we note that 19 CFR. 351.307(c) requires that each\nverification report include \xe2\x80\x9cmethods, procedures, and results of a verification.\xe2\x80\x9d This in effect is a\nstandard. We request that IA reconsider our recommendation and develop a standard for\nverification reports, details of which should be outlined in the action plan.\n\n\nIII. Management of Official Files Needs Attention\n\nOfficial files should be maintained according to regulations, which require that the originals be\nduplicated and safeguarded. We found that the official files are vulnerable to fire loss. Document\nmanagement software recently was purchased to store electronic copies of official file contents.\nIA should take appropriate action to implement the system.\n\n9\n IA's Investigations of Steel Industry Petitions, TTD-5541-4-001, OIG, December 1993\n\n\n 14\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n\n\n A. Case Files are Sometimes Incomplete Despite Regulatory Requirements\n\nWe found that documents, data sets, and margin calculations were missing from official case\nfiles despite regulatory requirements to maintain them.\n\nSome Documents Are Missing from Case Files. Analysts are required to maintain complete\nand accurate records generated during the proceedings of each AD review. Our review of IA\nofficial records, thousands of which are primarily stored in the Central Records Unit (CRU),\nfound that case files vary greatly in completeness. Disks containing electronic media files, such\nas data sets and margin calculations, are considered part of the official files but are stored in the\nOffice of Information Technology. The majority of the 40 official files in the CRU that we\nreviewed were incomplete with respect to containing appropriate internal concurrence records,\nFederal Register notices, and decision memoranda. The official files in our sample were\nrandomly chosen from a list of AD annual administrative reviews, which had been conducted in\nFYs 2003 and 2004. The Director of the CRU believes missing documents could have been\nmislabeled or misfiled. According to its regulations, IA must maintain an \xe2\x80\x9cofficial record of each\nantidumping ... duty proceeding,\xe2\x80\x9d to include \xe2\x80\x9cgovernment memoranda pertaining to the\nproceeding, ... determinations, notices published in the Federal Register, and transcripts of\nhearings,\xe2\x80\x9d including \xe2\x80\x9cmaterial that is public, business proprietary, privileged, and classified.\xe2\x80\x9d10\nAnalysts are responsible for transmitting documents prepared by the Department to the CRU for\narchiving.\n\nIn the event of a court challenge to a final determination, the official case file is delivered to the\nresponsible analyst to certify its completeness before it is delivered to the Department of Justice\nfor litigation. Analysts told us that government documents they had prepared for archiving by the\nCRU sometimes are missing when they receive the case file for certification. As a result, they\nmust spend several days reconstituting the case file with copies of documents. Missing\ndocuments that cannot be reconstituted can negatively impact the government\xe2\x80\x99s defense of an IA\ndetermination. Though there is no IA requirement, analysts often keep unofficial chronological\nfiles as backups (copies of which could be used to reconstitute the case file). Nonetheless, IA\nmust properly maintain official case files as required by regulations.11\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA office directors, program managers, and CRU staff should ensure that\nofficial records of annual administrative reviews are complete and accurate.\n\n\n\nIn its response to our draft report, ITA stated that IA agreed with our recommendation that\nofficial records of its administrative reviews should be complete and accurate. IA stated that\nprogram managers would make certain that analysts are fully aware of their obligations to\nmaintain complete and accurate records. However, IA did not state precisely how it would\nensure that analysts maintain complete and accurate records. For example, IA managers could\n\n10\n 19 CFR 351.104\n\n11\n We did not examine the CRU\xe2\x80\x99s management and administrative controls for archiving documents. \n\n\n\n 15\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\ncertify complete and accurate records as they are sent to the CRU, similar to the procedures\nfollowed when certifying a case file for litigation. We would appreciate clarification on this\nissue in the action plan.\n\nFurthermore, IA stated that court record preparation and certification procedures would be\nincluded in a future operations handbook. We commend IA for agreeing to outline these\nprocedures in its future operations handbook, and we look forward to reviewing them when we\nreceive the handbook upon its completion.\n\n\nPolicy on Data Sets and Margin Calculations Needs to be Enforced. Data sets and margin\ncalculations are considered part of the official files. Analysts receive data sets from company\nrespondents or petitioners and must periodically send data sets to computer support staff to be\nincluded in the official files. The computer support staff sends the data to IA\xe2\x80\x99s IT office for\nstorage. Analysts must also send copies of their computer programs along with the margin\ncalculations when preliminary or final determinations on margins are made. However, we found\nthat IA does not enforce its storage policy. We found that the data sets and margin calculations\nwere missing in 62.5 percent of 2003 case files and 53.3 percent of 2004 case files in our sample\nof 24 cases out of the 40 case records that we reviewed.12 (See discussion on official files on\npage 15) The director of the IT office indicates that there is no enforcement mechanism for IA\xe2\x80\x99s\nstorage policy. She believes that some of the data sets and margin calculations could still be with\ncomputer support staff or the case analyst, though she is not certain.\n\nThough managers and analysts that we interviewed told us that IA has a policy on storing data\nsets and margin calculations, we could not find a written copy of the policy nor was it on IA\xe2\x80\x99s\ninformation management system. None of the analysts we interviewed has seen the policy in\nwriting. They knew of the policy from their program managers or colleagues. We interviewed\none new analyst who has been with the bureau for less than one year who did not know there was\na policy on storing data sets and margin calculations.\n\nIf the data sets or margin calculations are missing, the Department\xe2\x80\x99s position could be weakened\nin court because it would not be able to fully defend its determination. In the case of remands\nwhen the Department is asked to recalculate margins, IA may be unable to do so without having\nto request repeat data sets from all parties involved so it can recreate calculations.\n\nWe note that the CMD provides a field where the unique storage number of each data set can be\nentered into the system. However, over 92 percent of the samples we examined lacked this\ninformation. (See discussion on the CMD on page 7)\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA needs to: (1) put its storage policy on data sets and margin calculations\nin writing and make it accessible to employees; (2) enforce that storage policy by requiring\nprogram managers to certify that all data sets and margin calculations have been sent to the IT\noffice before a case can be closed on the CMD; (3) require that the unique storage number of the\n\n12\n We did not include cases that were rescinded because all proceedings are terminated. Therefore, data sets are not\nrequired to be stored and no margin calculations are generated.\n\n\n 16\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nstored data be entered in the CMD; and (4) create an inventory list of data sets and margin\ncalculations, which is sent periodically to office directors, who should ensure that data is being\nstored.\n\n\n\nITA indicated that IA agreed with our recommendation and that IA is in the process of drafting\ninstructions and procedures for submitting datasets and margin calculations to the IT office. In\naddition, IA has revised its \xe2\x80\x9cIT Media Submission Form,\xe2\x80\x9d which will require a unique storage\nnumber that is assigned by the IT office. The form will require a manager\xe2\x80\x99s initials certifying\nthat the data has been compiled and is ready for submission. The form will then be saved in the\nCMD system and managers will be able to certify that the data has been submitted to the IT\noffice. The IT office will then record the unique storage number in the CMD. Once this is done,\na report on a specific case or company can be generated by the CMD that will allow managers to\nverify that all data and programmatic information have been correctly submitted to the IT office.\nIA also indicated that the instructions and procedures on submitting datasets and margin\ncalculations as well as the new media form will be included in IA training manuals and the\nCMD. We suggest that the information also be included in the operations handbook. The\nactions outlined above meet the intent of our recommendations. Once we receive written\nnotification that they have been completed, we will close out this recommendation.\n\n\n B. Case Files May Be Vulnerable To Fire\n\nThousands of official files are kept in IA\xe2\x80\x99s CRU. IA is required to keep these official files for 20\nyears after a case is closed. For cases that are challenged in court, files must be maintained\nindefinitely. In addition, the public version of official files must be kept for 5 years after a case is\nclosed.13\n\nIn 1999, a chemical fire broke out in the Herbert C. Hoover Building (HCHB) in the room next\nto the CRU, which was saved by a firewall. Without it, the official files might have been\ndestroyed. If IA were challenged in court and an official file was not available, the bureau could\nbe directed by the court to redo all its work on that case, requiring analysts to spend extra time\nreconstituting a case file. There are currently no plans to install an automatic fire suppression or\nsprinkler system in the present location of the CRU. We found only two fire extinguishers in the\nCRU. The planned, multi-year HCHB renovation will include a sprinkler system in the CRU\xe2\x80\x99s\nfuture location. To accommodate the renovations, IA is scheduled to move out of the HCHB in\nthe spring/summer of 2007 into a temporary facility, which has yet to be determined. According\nto the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Renovation Program Office, IA is not expected to move back into the\nHCHB until 2017.\n\n\n\n\n13\n Based on ITA\xe2\x80\x99s records retention policy and National Archives and Records Administration guidelines.\n\n\n 17\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nDepartment Administrative Order (DAO) 205-1 requires that government agencies maintain\nbackup files for vital records.14 In addition, Federal Preparedness Circular 65 on the continuity\nof operations (COOP), dated June 15, 2004, calls for federal agencies to have access to electronic\nand hard copies of vital records in case of an emergency. IA does not normally keep duplicates\nof its official files with the exception of cases challenged in court. In such cases, the official file\nwould be duplicated on a CD-ROM15 and stored in the CRU. The IA Chief Counsel\xe2\x80\x99s office also\nmaintains a separate copy of cases in litigation in the building and, as already mentioned, many\nanalysts keep unofficial chronological files as backups. No electronic records are made of\ndocuments placed in the official files. Instead, a tracking form generated by IA\xe2\x80\x99s Central\nRecords Information Management System (CRIMS), is created for each document placed in the\nofficial files; the actual document remains in hard copy form in the CRU and is, therefore,\nvulnerable to loss.16\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA should take appropriate action to comply with federal and departmental\nrequirements to maintain backup files for vital records. In addition, IA should adopt appropriate\nmeasures to safeguard the official files in the Central Records Unit.\n\n\n\nIn its response, ITA indicated that IA agreed with our recommendation and stated that it would\nconsult with the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Building Management (OBM) to explore safeguards for\nits vital records, including interim fire suppression measures in the CRU. We would appreciate\nreceiving an update on the results of its discussions with OBM in its action plan. We concur\nwith IA that implementation of its new document and records management system, when it\noccurs, would likely satisfy this requirement.\n\nIA contends in its response that its budget is insufficient to copy all the official records in the\nCRU and to maintain space for a duplicate filing system at an off-site location. However with\nregard to backing up its vital records until the new document and records management system\nbecomes operational, IA should continue to explore options to comply with federal and\ndepartmental vital records requirements. IA should focus on electronically duplicating, for\ncurrent reviews forward, those records that cannot be duplicated from other sources (i.e., law\nfirms, interested parties). Such records, including internal memoranda and margin calculations,\nfor example, could be copied onto CD-RW format at regular intervals throughout a review and\nthose disks could be stored off-site. We would appreciate an update on IA\xe2\x80\x99s effort to comply\nwith these vital records requirements in the action plan.\n\n\n\n\n14\n The definition of vital records includes \xe2\x80\x9cthose records essential to protect the rights and interests of the \n\nDepartment and of individuals affected by its activities.\xe2\x80\x9d \n\n15\n Older court cases are reproduced on microfilm or microfiche. \n\n16\n Internally generated documents, such as decision memoranda, may be stored electronically on PCs by analysts\n\nthough it is not required nor are they considered a part of the official files. \n\n\n\n 18\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n C. New Document Management System Needed\n\nIn a matter related to IA\xe2\x80\x99s case file management, ITA\xe2\x80\x99s office of the Chief Information Officer\n(with IA\xe2\x80\x99s support) has purchased new enterprise software with a document management module\nthat would significantly improve IA\xe2\x80\x99s workflow and streamline its document and records\nmanagement. This system could provide the necessary backup system for official files, allowing\nIA to be compliant with Department Administrative Order (DAO) 205-1 and Federal\nPreparedness Circular 65. However, we learned that few staff have been assigned to work with\nthe CIO\xe2\x80\x99s office and the contractor to integrate this system into AD/CVD operations. The first\nphase of the system is scheduled to be fully operational by the end of 2005, according to IA\xe2\x80\x99s IT\nstaff. IA\xe2\x80\x99s expertise is required to document IA staff workflows, roles, and responsibilities,\ndevelop standards for documents, develop an electronic concurrence process, and determine\nprocedures for storing and managing documents. The director of the IT office has said that, given\nits scope, a full-time project manager would likely be needed for the project. She said her current\ndaily responsibilities do not allow her to provide the necessary support the project needs.\n\nDocument management consumes an inordinate amount of IA analysts\xe2\x80\x99 time, particularly when\nthey must reconstitute incomplete case files. Analysts said they must create both a public and a\nbusiness proprietary version of any document they generate, be it a memorandum, verification\nreport, or a record of the proceedings of a hearing. They also fill out forms with pertinent\ninformation to be entered into CRIMS. Documents intended for the CRIMS are dropped off at\ndesignated locations throughout the Department for CRU staff to pick up and then process. In\naddition, analysts spend several days reconstituting incomplete case files to prepare for pending\nlitigation. According to the CIO\xe2\x80\x99s office, this new software should help streamline these\nactivities by creating and storing electronic documents that analysts and CRU staff may access,\nsaving time and expense in printing and document processing, and lessening analysts\xe2\x80\x99\nadministrative duties so they can focus on core duties.\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA should take timely and appropriate action to implement its new\ndocument and records management software, which has the potential to lessen the administrative\nburden and increase the efficiency of IA analysts.\n\n\n\nITA indicated that IA agreed with our recommendation and stated that it has been anxious to\nimplement a document and records management system that would \xe2\x80\x9cnot only better serve its\ncustomers, but also streamline its current paper-driven workflow and document dissemination\nprocesses.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nWith the assistance and support of the ITA Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), IA\nindicated that it will launch Phase I (pilot project) of the document management system in the\nApril/May 2005 timeframe. The pilot stage will include the design of a system for antidumping\nreviews and then testing by using the system to conduct several actual antidumping reviews. IA\nsaid that the OCIO\xe2\x80\x99s office assigned a project manager to support the project in November 2004.\nIn addition, the software vendor has provided a project manager to assist in the implementation\nof Phase I, which is expected to be completed by October 2005. However, IA indicates that it is\n\n\n 19\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nconcerned that the OCIO may not be able to support IA\xe2\x80\x99s project much past the pilot project\nphase. IA notes that its ability to implement the system will be significantly impacted by the\nlevel of technical support provided by the OCIO in the coming year.\n\nWhile the initial actions taken by IA and the OCIO\xe2\x80\x99s office are a good beginning, we are also\nconcerned that the document management system may not be implemented if both IA and the\nOCIO\xe2\x80\x99s office do not continue to support each other in this effort. As such, this recommendation\nwill remain open until the system is fully implemented. We request that IA and ITA provide\ndetails in the action plan about when the second and final phase of the project will begin.\n\n\nIV. Computer Support Needs Restructuring\n\nUnder IA\xe2\x80\x99s previous organizational structure, each of the three DASs for Operations had his/her\nown two-person computer support team that trained analysts to use the statistical analysis\nsoftware used to calculate dumping margins. Each team reported to a different office director\nwho in turn reported to one of the three DASs. According to managers, this structure was\nadopted because each DAS had different views on how the work should be conducted. After the\nreorganization, this structure was left intact though all 9 office directors now report to only one\nDAS. Staff interviews revealed this structure does not allow the organization to fully leverage its\ncomputer support resources and discourages teamwork. When one team is overwhelmed, it\ncannot get full support from other teams because they report to different managers. For instance,\nwe found that because of a vacancy in Team 3 that has yet to be filled, four offices comprising\n112 persons are not receiving adequate computer support (See Figure 5 \xe2\x80\x93 We note that offices 8\nand 9 comprise the new China group, which has an extremely active portfolio.)\n\n Figure 5: Computer Support Teams\n Team 3\n Team 1 Team 2\n (1 person w/\n (2 persons) (2 persons)\n one vacancy)\n Offices Supported 1, 2, and 3 4 and 5 6, 7, 8, and 9\n # of People Supported\n 68 51 112\n under Current Staffing\n # of People Supported\n 83 58 140\n under Full Staffing\n Source: Based on IA\xe2\x80\x99s staffing pattern report dated 09/08/04.\n\nThe lack of a single reporting chain for the three computer support teams also has contributed to\ndifferences in the computer programs used to calculate dumping margins, though IA is now\ntrying to correct this under its consistency initiative. Uniting the computer support teams and\nhaving them report to one manager would also improve consistency in service and support\nprovided to offices and allow all computer support staff to receive the same training and\ndevelopment.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA should review the current structure of its computer support staff and\ndetermine how the staff can best meet the needs of the organization in light of the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s\nrecent reorganization.\n\n\n\nITA indicated that IA agreed with our recommendation and that it intended to review the current\nstaffing levels and assignment of its IT staff. We request that IA provide us with the results of\nthe review. At that time, we will close out this recommendation.\n\n\nV. Training Program for Analysts Should Be Improved\n\nIA presently has three standardized training modules for its new analysts: new analyst training,\nverification, and statistical analysis software training. Each analyst we interviewed stated that\nshe/he has received training for at least one, if not all, training modules. Still, we found that the\ntraining provided could be improved.\n\nAccording to IA staff, many training classes have been conducted irregularly and often by office\ndirectors and program managers with subject matter expertise, although most do not have\nbackgrounds in training. Several analysts mentioned being overwhelmed by the information\nprovided in these training courses so soon after being hired. The senior office director who was\nassigned responsibility for IA training in July 2004 indicated that the question of how best to\ntrain new analysts has always been a difficult one. Some office directors believe providing\ntraining in the beginning rather than later is better. Others disagree. In addition, the senior office\ndirector says it is difficult to pull people for training if they are working to meet statutory\ndeadlines. She is exploring some ideas of how to improve the program, such as conducting focus\ngroups to identify the needs of new analysts and analysts who have been with the bureau one or\ntwo years. But she has no dedicated staff to help her develop and improve the training programs.\n\nAnalysts\xe2\x80\x99 suggestions for improving training include:\n\n Incorporating an accounting course into the new analyst training so that analysts with no\n accounting background have the knowledge to conduct verifications;\n Providing new analyst training incrementally (for example: upon arrival, after 3 months,\n 6 months and so on) so new analysts are not overwhelmed with information when they\n start; and,\n Offering cultural sensitivity training to familiarize analysts with different cultures and\n foreign business practices.\n\nThe third suggestion stems from the fact that some analysts have witnessed rude or inappropriate\nbehavior such as derogatory remarks made by more experienced analysts conducting foreign\nverifications. New analysts said they were embarrassed by such actions, which do not serve the\nbest interests of the U.S. government.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nIA should also consider providing CMD training for new analysts. We understand that some\noffice directors have requested formal CMD training for their staff, but this is done on an ad hoc\nbasis.\n\nAnalysts with more experience also expressed concern about career development training and\nopportunities. None of the analysts we interviewed had ever heard of an individual development\nplan (IDP), much less completed one. In many federal agencies, an IDP is filled out annually by\nemployees to help them and their supervisors identify professional development objectives and\nthe training needed to achieve them.\n\nSome bureaus within Commerce and other agencies have adopted a systematic approach to\ntraining by identifying essential core skills or competencies of staff by grade and developing\ntraining programs that match the desired skill sets. The same can be done with career\ndevelopment, such as leadership training. As staff advance in grade, additional career\ndevelopment training can be added.\n\nWe did find one office\xe2\x80\x94 the China/NME group\xe2\x80\x94 which provides some professional\ndevelopment training. The unit\xe2\x80\x99s coordinator has made a concerted effort to provide specialized\ntraining courses pertinent to China reviews. As a result, analysts in this unit are able to take\ncourses in Chinese languages and China\xe2\x80\x99s financial system. In addition, the coordinator is\nworking on a new course on calculating margins from NME countries.\n\nIA management is required by statute, as are all heads of federal agencies, to \xe2\x80\x9c...establish,\noperate, maintain, and evaluate a program or programs, and a plan or plans thereunder, for the\ntraining of (its) employees ... in order to assist in achieving an agency\xe2\x80\x99s mission and performance\ngoals.\xe2\x80\x9d17 In addition, IA is mandated to establish \xe2\x80\x9ca comprehensive management succession\nprogram to provide training to employees to develop managers for the agency.\xe2\x80\x9d18\n\nInadequate training might negatively impact IA\xe2\x80\x99s operations. For example, it could lead to\nprogrammatic inefficiencies, as program managers and/or team leaders would be required to\nspend more time than necessary training new analysts instead of managing their projects. In\naddition, employee turnover may rise if analysts find themselves without the skills needed to\nperform their duties or to enhance their career development goals. We discussed IA\xe2\x80\x99s training\nneeds with ITA\xe2\x80\x99s Chief Financial Officer who indicated that the Manufacturing and Services\nUnit has developed a knowledge-based on-line training program that may be of interest to IA. In\naddition, she indicated that there may be funds available to assist IA in the development of a\nsimilar on-line training system. We note that there are currently 87 vacancies within IA. This is\ndue partly to newly created positions for new program initiatives, such as the China/Non-Market\nEconomy (NME) group, quality initiatives, and the Customs liaison unit. The development of\nsome type of training program could help shorten the learning curve for new analysts as these\nvacancies are filled (see Figure 6).\n\n\n\n17\n 5 USC 4103(a)\n18\n 5 USC 4121(1)\n\n\n 22\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\nFigure 6: Number of Vacancies in IA in FY 2005\n Unit Current Staff Vacancies\n Office of the Assistant\n 25 5\n Secretary\n DAS for Policy and\n 91.5 25.5\n Negotiations\n DAS for AD/CVD\n 230.5 50.5\n Operations\n DAS for Textiles 32 4\n Other * 13 2\n Total 392 87\n * Total of Statutory Import Programs and Foreign Trade Zones Staffs\nSource: Import Administration, January 2005\n\nRECOMMENDATION: IA should reassess its approach to developing training programs, including\ncareer development, to ensure that the needs of the analysts are met.\n\n\n\nIn its comments on our draft report, ITA indicated that IA agreed with our recommendation and\nstated that its training program needs to be examined carefully and improved. As we noted in\nour draft report, training is a critical issue for IA in light of the large number of recent vacancies\nin its operations division. We acknowledge IA\xe2\x80\x99s efforts in considering a number of options to\nfulfill our recommendation, such as dedicating certain staff members to assist in developing a\ntraining program or hiring an outside consultant to help develop an ongoing program. In\naddition, as noted in our draft report, we encourage IA to explore the option of working with\nITA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of the Chief Financial Officer to develop a web-based training module for new\nanalysts. We would appreciate receiving an update of IA\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to improve its training\nprogram for new and current analysts in the action plan.\n\n\nIssues on the Horizon. China Group Resources - We note the growing workload of the new\nChina/Non-Market Economy (NME) group. In 2004, 36 percent of annual administrative\nreviews involved China. Managers expect the number of China cases to continue to grow. In the\nshort term, they believe there is enough staff to do the work, but the situation may quickly\nchange if new cases warrant more resources than usual. Managers cite the recent China furniture\ncase that involved more than 100 companies and consumed the resources of an entire program\nunit. The significant increase in Chinese companies requesting new shipper reviews is also\nputting a strain on resources. This workload issue requires continuing management scrutiny to\ndetermine whether staff resources need to be reallocated to help handle this group\xe2\x80\x99s workload.\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n RECOMMENDATIONS \n\n\nWe recommend that the Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration ensure that the\nfollowing actions are taken:\n\n1. \t IA should determine how to address the issue of statutory deadlines for annual AD\n administrative reviews that fall on weekends. (see page 6)\n\n2. \t IA should document (1) the management control process for meeting internal and statutory\n deadlines and (2) the roles and responsibilities of IA staff involved throughout the entire\n antidumping review process. (see page 7)\n\n3. \t IA managers should ensure that analysts (1) enter accurate information into the CMD; and 2)\n maintain complete and up-to-date case records in the CMD. These requirements should be\n included in an operations handbook. (see page 7)\n\n4. \t IA should use actual and not estimated performance data when the bureau is reporting its\n performance results for the Department's Annual Performance Plan. (see page 7)\n\n5. \t IA should update the antidumping manual for its analysts and the public. (see page 12)\n\n6. \t IA should develop and maintain an updated internal operations handbook to formalize\n current bureau practices into written policies and guidelines and make the handbook\n accessible to all employees through IA\xe2\x80\x99s portal on the ITA intranet. (see page 12)\n\n7. \t IA management needs to formulate a standard for verification reports to improve the quality\n and consistency of the reports and enable analysts to complete the reports more efficiently.\n (see page 13)\n\n8. \t IA office directors, program managers, and CRU staff should ensure that official records of\n annual administrative reviews are complete and accurate. (see page 15)\n\n9. \t IA needs to: (1) put its storage policy on data sets and margin calculations in writing and\n make it accessible to employees; (2) enforce that storage policy by requiring program\n managers to certify that all data sets and margin calculations have been sent to the IT office\n before a case can be closed on the CMD; (3) require that the unique storage number of the\n stored data be entered in the CMD; and (4) create an inventory list of data sets and margin\n calculations, which is sent periodically to office directors, who should ensure that data is\n being stored. (see page 15)\n\n10. IA should take appropriate action to comply with federal and departmental requirements to\n maintain backup files for vital records. In addition, IA should adopt appropriate measures to\n safeguard the official files in the Central Records Unit. (see page 17)\n\n11. IA should take timely and appropriate action to implement its new document and records\n management software, which has the potential to lessen the administrative burden and\n increase the efficiency of IA analysts. (see page 19)\n\n 24\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n\n\n12. IA should review the current structure of its computer support staff and determine how the\n staff can best meet the needs of the organization in light of the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s recent\n reorganization. (see page 20)\n\n13. IA should reassess its approach to developing training programs, including career\n development, to ensure that the needs of the analysts are met. (see page 21)\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n APPENDIXES \n\n\n APPENDIX A: Types of Antidumping Administrative Reviews1\n\n\n\n\n A review conducted to determine the\n amount of antidumping duties to assess on\n Antidumping Review imports during a specific period of review\n and establish new deposit rates for future\n imports.\n An inquiry conducted to determine whether\n Anticircumvention Review imports are circumventing an antidumping\n order.\n A review undertaken by Import\n Administration to determine whether\n Changed Circumstances Review changed circumstances warrant its review of\n certain prior affirmative antidumping.\n\n A review whereby so-called \xe2\x80\x9cnew shippers''\n can obtain their own individual dumping\n margin on an expedited basis. In general, a\n new shipper is an exporter or producer that\n New Shipper Review did not export, and is not affiliated with an\n exporter or producer that did export, to the\n United States during the period of the\n investigation.\n A review conducted on the fifth anniversary\n of an antidumping order to determine\n whether revoking an existing order would be\n likely to lead to continuation or recurrence\n Sunset Review of the dumping. If continuation or\n recurrence is found unlikely, the order is\n revoked. If not, the order can be extended\n for another five years.\n\n Source: Import Administration, 19 CFR 351\n\n\n\n\n1\n Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.\n\n\n 26\n\n\x0c Office of Inspector General\n U.S. Department of Commerce\n\n\n\n\n U.S.\n Industry ITC Preliminary IA Preliminary IA Final ITC Final IA\n Petitions to Determination 1 Determination 2 Determination Determination Issues\n IA and ITC Order\n\n\n\n IA has 20 days 45 days from 140 days from 75 days from 45 days from IA Usually published\n to initiate an petition initiation 3 IA Preliminary Final within 7 days of\n investigation Determination 3 Determination the signature date\n\n\n\n\n27 \n\n of the order\n 267 days\n from\n initiation\n\n\n 1\n The International Trade Commission (ITC) determines whether U.S. industry has been \xe2\x80\x9cmaterially injured\xe2\x80\x9d by foreign imports.\n 2\n A verification is conducted after a preliminary determination during this phase of the process.\n APPENDIX B: Antidumping Investigation Process\n\n\n\n\n 3\n Extensions are allowed for IA preliminary and final determinations.\n\n\n Source: Import Administration, OIG Analysis\n March 2005\n\n Final Report IPE-16952\n\n\x0c Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n Request Initiation and Publication of\n U.S. Department of Commerce\n\n\n\n\n IA Preliminary IA Final\n IA Issues for Publication Determination IA Final\n Review of Notice to Determination Determination\n Order of Review 1, 4 of Review 4\n Review of Review\n\n\n\n\n Industry (U.S. or 30 days from 245 days from 372 days from Usually\n foreign) may request request 2 request 2,3 published\n\n\n\n\n28 \n\n request a review within 7 days of\n of the current Duty is assessed the signature\n deposit rate 12 for the previous period date\n months after the reviewed.\n order is issued\n Deposit rate is set for\n the following 12 months.\n 1\n A verification is conducted prior to the preliminary determination during this phase of the review.\n APPENDIX C: Administrative Review Process\n\n\n\n\n 2\n Statutory deadlines. Extensions totaling up to 180 days are permitted for IA preliminary and final determinations. In \n\n FY 2003, 43.3 percent of AD administrative reviews were extended, compared with 50.5 percent in FY 2004. \n\n 3\n Assumes the notice of preliminary determination is published 7 days after the signature date.\n 4\n For ease of understanding, we use the term preliminary or final determination versus preliminary or final results.\n\n Source: Import Administration, 19 CFR 351.702, and OIG Analysis\n March 2005\n\n Final Report IPE-16952\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n APPENDIX D: Acronyms\n\n\n\n AD Antidumping\n CFR Code of Federal Regulations\n CMD Case Management Database\n CRIMS Central Records Information Management System\n CRU Central Records Unit\n CVD Countervailing Duty\n DOC Department of Commerce\n GPRA Government Performance and Results Act\n IA Import Administration\n NME Non-Market Economy\n USC United States Code\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n APPENDIX E: Agency Response\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n\n\n 32\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n\n\n 33\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n\n\n 34\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n\n\n 36\n\n\x0cU.S. Department of Commerce Final Report IPE-16952\n\nOffice of the Inspector General March 2005 \n\n\n\n\n\n 37\n\n\x0c"