Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Certain Non-Market Economies: Market-Oriented Enterprise, 29302-29304 [E7-10130]

Download as PDF 29302 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Eurodif II decisions were not in harmony with the Department’s final CVD determination for LEU from France. See Low Enriched Uranium from France: Notice of Court Decision and Suspension of Liquidation, 71 FR 33280 (June 8, 2006) (‘‘LEU Timken Notice’’). The LEU Timken Notice continued the suspension of liquidation, and further informed that if the CIT’s decision was not appealed, or if appealed, and upheld, the Department would publish an amended final CVD determination. On July 17, 2006, USEC2 filed a notice of appeal challenging the CIT’s affirmation of the Department’s remand determination. On February 9, 2007, the Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s decision without a written opinion, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Court’s rules. The deadline for filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court has elapsed. Amended Final Determination, Revocation of Order, and Rescission of Review Because there is now a final and conclusive decision in the court proceeding, we are amending the LEU Final Determination to reflect the results of the LEU Remand Redetermination, which is a revised countervailable subsidy rate of 0.87 percent ad valorem for Eurodif during the period of investigation, which is de minimis. Further, because Eurodif is the only known producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, we are revoking the CVD order for all entries effective May 14, 2001, the date on which the Department published the notice of preliminary affirmative CVD determination. See Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment with Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Low Enriched Uranium from France, 66 FR 24325 (May 14, 2001). Accordingly, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to terminate the suspension of liquidation, pursuant to section 705(c)(2)(A)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). Injunctions enjoining liquidation of entries subject to the CVD order remain in place for (1) entries on or after May 14, 2001, and on or before September 11, 2001, and on or after February 13, 2002, and on or before December 31, 2002,3 and (2) entries on or after January 1, 2003, and on or before December 31, 2003.4 Injunctions enjoining 2 United States Enrichment Corporation and USEC Inc. (‘‘USEC’’) are the petitioners. 3 Court number 04-00392. 4 Court number 05-00456. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:34 May 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 liquidations of entries subject to the companion antidumping order remain in place for (1) entries on or after July 13, 2001, and on or before January 8, 2002, and on or after February 13, 2002, and (2) entries on or after February 1, 2003, and on or before January 31, 2004.5 We will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries without regard to countervailing duties when the injunctions are lifted. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4), the Department is rescinding the ongoing administrative review covering the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. The Department will also not initiate the administrative review covering the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, for which a deferral was published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 14516 (March 28, 2007). This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d), 751(a)(3)(C), and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 21, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–10136 Filed 5–24–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Certain Non– Market Economies: Market–Oriented Enterprise Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) requests public comment on whether it should consider granting market–economy treatment to individual respondents in antidumping proceedings involving China, the conditions under which individual firms should be granted market– economy treatment, and how such treatment might affect our antidumping calculation for such qualifying respondents. DATES: Comments must be submitted by thirty days from the publication of this notice. ADDRESSES: Written comments (original and ten copies) should be sent to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of AGENCY: 5 Court PO 00000 numbers 02-00219 and 05-00564. Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy, Program Manager, AD/ CVD Operations or Lawrence Norton, Economist, Office of Policy, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC, 20230, (202) 482–5403 and (202) 482–1579, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In antidumping proceedings involving non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) countries, it is the Department’s usual practice to calculate the normal value for allegedly dumped merchandise being imported into the United States by valuing the NME producer’s factors of production using, to the extent possible, prices from a market economy that is at a comparable level of economic development and that is also a significant producer of comparable merchandise. See section 771(c)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). Specifically, section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides for the use of factors of production to determine normal value if two conditions are met: (A) the subject merchandise is exported from a non–market economy country; and (B) the administering authority finds that available information does not permit the normal value of the subject merchandise to be determined as is done for respondents in market economy countries. In all past NME proceedings involving China, the Department has found that both conditions of section 773(c)(1) are met and has calculated the normal value based on prices and costs from a surrogate country, in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act. The Department currently employs an industry–wide test to determine whether, under section 773(c)(1)(B), available information in the NME permits the use of the market economy antidumping methodology for the NME industry producing the subject merchandise. This so–called market– oriented industry (‘‘MOI’’) test affords NME–country respondents the possibility of market economy treatment, but only on a case–by-case, industry–specific basis. This test is performed only upon request of respondent (companies and government). The Department has outlined three conditions that must be met in order for an MOI to exist: (1) that E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices there be virtually no government involvement in production or prices for the industry; (2) that the industry be marked by private or collective ownership that behaves in a manner consistent with market considerations; and (3) that producers be found to pay market–determined prices for all major inputs, and for all but an insignificant proportion of minor inputs. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 20594, 20595 (April 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. The current MOI test was formulated 15 years ago. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sulfanilic Acid From the People’s Republic of China, 57 FR 9409 (March 18, 1992). However, as discussed more fully in the Department’s March 29, 2007 memorandum, Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet (‘‘CFS’’) Paper from the People’s Republic of China - Whether the Analytical Elements of the Georgetown Steel Opinion are Applicable to China’s Present–Day Economy, (March 29, 2007) (‘‘Georgetown Steel Memorandum’’) (memorandum is on file in the Department’s Central Records Unit in Room B–099 of the main Department building (‘‘CRU’’) on the record of case number C–570–907), China’s economy has evolved significantly over time and its present–day economy ‘‘features both a certain degree of private initiative as well as significant government intervention, combining market processes with continued state guidance.’’ Id. at 7. Further, the Department found that while private industry now dominates many sectors of the Chinese economy and entrepreneurship is flourishing, China’s economy is best characterized as one in which constrained market mechanisms operate alongside (and sometimes, in spite of) government plans. Id. at 9–10. Although the limits the PRC Government has placed on the role of market forces are not consistent with recognition of China as a market economy under the U.S. antidumping law, the evolution in China’s economy nevertheless has led the Department to conclude that it is possible to determine whether the state has bestowed a benefit upon a Chinese producer (i.e., a subsidy can be identified and measured) and whether any such benefit is specific. Id. at 9. See also Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic of China: VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:34 May 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 Amended Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 FR 17484 (April 9, 2007). The Department also stated in the Georgetown Steel Memorandum that the evolution of China’s economy together with the features and characteristics of China’s present–day economy, including a growing private sector, suggest that modification of some aspects of the Department’s current NME antidumping policy and practice with regard to China may be warranted, such as the conditions under which the Department might grant an individual respondent in China market–economy treatment in some or all respects. Request for Comment Given the Department’s analysis in the March 29, 2007 Georgetown Steel Memorandum regarding China’s present–day economy, the Department is requesting public comment on the conditions under which the Department might grant market–economy treatment to individual Chinese respondents, and, if so, how this might affect our antidumping duty calculations for such enterprises. The Department does not preclude the possibility that market– economy treatment for individual respondents in non–market economies other than China might be warranted. At this time however, the Department has only examined China’s economy on a country–wide basis. As noted above, the Department currently has a test to determine whether an industry is market–oriented. However, no industry in China has yet been granted MOI status. Given the high standard that must be met for an industry to obtain MOI status, the Department requests that parties focus their comments on the conditions and factors that would guide the Department’s assessment of the market– orientation of individual respondents, as opposed to industries. In submitting comments, we ask parties to consider whether and how a market–oriented enterprise or limited market–oriented enterprise should be identified and to what extent the Department should rely on a market–oriented enterprise’s prices and costs, particularly for those inputs that are inextricably linked to the broader operating economic environment, i.e., labor, land and capital, factors of production that were discussed at length in the Department’s recent assessment of China’s status as an NME in the antidumping duty investigation of certain lined paper products from China. See Memorandum for David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Antidumping Duty Investigation of PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 29303 Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘China’’) China’s Status as a Non–Market Economy (‘‘NME’’) (August 30, 2006) (memorandum is on file in the CRU on the record of case number A–570–901). In finding that China continues to be an NME for purposes of U.S. antidumping law, the Department determined that, despite considerable reforms, the PRC government ‘‘retains for itself considerable levers of control over the economy.’’ Id. at 4. Accordingly, while an enterprise may be market–oriented, the cost of certain inputs obtained in the broader economy may necessarily be determined on a non–market basis. Given such a situation in China, we request parties to consider to what extent, if any, a finding of a market– oriented enterprise might be limited and how a respondent’s prices and costs within China could be utilized together with certain surrogate prices and costs in our antidumping duty calculations. Submission of Comments Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and ten copies of each set of comments by the date specified above. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered if time permits. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in the development of any changes to its practice. The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form. The Department recommends submission of comments in electronic form to accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted either by e– mail to the webmaster below, or on CD– ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment. Comments will be made available to the public in Portable Document Format (‘‘PDF’’) on the Internet at the Import Administration website at the following address: https://www.trade.gov/ia/. Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at (202) E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 29304 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices 482–0866, email address: webmaster– support@ita.doc.gov. Dated: May 18, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–10130 Filed 5–24–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology delivery, courier, and express mailing. ATP will not make any allowances for late submissions. All ATP competition requirements and information announced in the April 10, 2007 Federal Register notice apply to proposals submitted during the extended time period. Proposers who attempted to submit electronic applications but were unsuccessful must resubmit a paper application. Please remember paper submission requires an original and fifteen (15) copies. Dated: May 23, 2007. James M. Turner, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. 07–2641 Filed 5–23–07; 12:38 pm] [Docket No. 070320063–7064–01] Advanced Technology Program; Extension of Due Date for Proposals National Institute of Standards and Technology, United States Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. BILLING CODE 3510–13–P Due to technical difficulties, NIST is extending the deadline for proposal submission for its Advanced Technology Program competition to 3 p.m. Eastern Time, Friday, May 25, 2007. NIST will accept only paper submissions during the extended time period. DATES: Paper submissions must be received no later than 3 p.m. Eastern Time, Friday, May 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Paper submissions must be sent to National Institute of Standards and Technology, Advanced Technology Program, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4701, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–4701. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Lambis at 301–975–4447 or by e-mail at Barbara.lambis@nist.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 10, 2007, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Advanced Technology Program (ATP) announced that it was soliciting proposals for a single fiscal year 2007 competition (72 FR 17838). The due date for submission of all proposals was 3 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday, May 21, 2007. Due to technical difficulties, NIST was unable to accept some proposals electronically during the day on Monday, May 21, 2007. Therefore, electronic proposals received between 3 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 21, 2007 are deemed timely. Additionally, NIST is extending the deadline for any paper submissions. Paper submissions must be received by 3 p.m. Eastern Time, Friday, May 25, 2007. During the extended time period, NIST will accept only paper submissions. This paper submission deadline applies to any mode of paper proposal delivery, including hand- National Institute of Standards and Technology AGENCY: jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:34 May 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Announcing a Meeting of the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of meeting. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Thursday, June 7, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., and Friday, June 8, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. All sessions will be open to the public. The Advisory Board was established by the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100–235) and amended by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–347) to advise the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of NIST on security and privacy issues pertaining to federal computer systems. Details regarding the Board’s activities are available at https://csrc.nist.gov/ ispab/. DATES: The meeting will be held on June 7, 2007 from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. and June 8, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the George Washington University Cafritz Conference Center, 800 21st Street, NW., Room 308/Parks Room, Washington, DC. Agenda: —Welcome and Overview —NIST Briefing —Options for better security through improved compliance and reporting —OMB Privacy Update PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 —Software Configuration Panel —Privacy Technology Project White Paper —Distributed Identification and Protection of Citizen Data —Real ID Discussion —NRC Privacy Study Briefing —Security for Distributed Computing —ISPAB Work Plan Status Review —Wrap-Up Note that agenda items may change without notice because of possible unexpected schedule conflicts of presenters. Public Participation: The Board agenda will include a period of time, not to exceed thirty minutes, for oral comments and questions from the public. Each speaker will be limited to five minutes. Members of the public who are interested in speaking are asked to contact the Board Secretariat at the telephone number indicated below. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the Board at any time. Written statements should be directed to the ISPAB Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8930. It would be appreciated if 25 copies of written material were submitted for distribution to the Board and attendees no later than May 23, 2007. Approximately 15 seats will be available for the public and media. Ms. Pauline Bowen, Board Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8930, telephone: (301) 975–2938. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: May 17, 2007. James M. Turner, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E7–10129 Filed 5–24–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–CN–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XA44 Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, and Conduct Restoration Planning to Compensate for Injuries to Natural Resources in the Lower Duwamish River National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 101 (Friday, May 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29302-29304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10130]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Certain Non-
Market Economies: Market-Oriented Enterprise

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') requests 
public comment on whether it should consider granting market-economy 
treatment to individual respondents in antidumping proceedings 
involving China, the conditions under which individual firms should be 
granted market-economy treatment, and how such treatment might affect 
our antidumping calculation for such qualifying respondents.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by thirty days from the publication 
of this notice.

ADDRESSES: Written comments (original and ten copies) should be sent to 
David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, Pennsylvania 
Avenue and 14th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations or Lawrence Norton, Economist, Office of Policy, Import 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC, 20230, (202) 482-5403 and (202) 
482-1579, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In antidumping proceedings involving non-market economy (``NME'') 
countries, it is the Department's usual practice to calculate the 
normal value for allegedly dumped merchandise being imported into the 
United States by valuing the NME producer's factors of production 
using, to the extent possible, prices from a market economy that is at 
a comparable level of economic development and that is also a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. See section 771(c)(4) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). Specifically, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides for the use of factors of 
production to determine normal value if two conditions are met:
     (A) the subject merchandise is exported from a non-market economy 
country; and
     (B) the administering authority finds that available information 
does not permit the normal value of the subject merchandise to be 
determined as is done for respondents in market economy countries.
    In all past NME proceedings involving China, the Department has 
found that both conditions of section 773(c)(1) are met and has 
calculated the normal value based on prices and costs from a surrogate 
country, in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act.
    The Department currently employs an industry-wide test to determine 
whether, under section 773(c)(1)(B), available information in the NME 
permits the use of the market economy antidumping methodology for the 
NME industry producing the subject merchandise. This so-called market-
oriented industry (``MOI'') test affords NME-country respondents the 
possibility of market economy treatment, but only on a case-by-case, 
industry-specific basis. This test is performed only upon request of 
respondent (companies and government). The Department has outlined 
three conditions that must be met in order for an MOI to exist: (1) 
that

[[Page 29303]]

there be virtually no government involvement in production or prices 
for the industry; (2) that the industry be marked by private or 
collective ownership that behaves in a manner consistent with market 
considerations; and (3) that producers be found to pay market-
determined prices for all major inputs, and for all but an 
insignificant proportion of minor inputs. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television 
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594, 20595 
(April 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1.
    The current MOI test was formulated 15 years ago. See Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sulfanilic Acid From 
the People's Republic of China, 57 FR 9409 (March 18, 1992). However, 
as discussed more fully in the Department's March 29, 2007 memorandum, 
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet (``CFS'') Paper 
from the People's Republic of China - Whether the Analytical Elements 
of the Georgetown Steel Opinion are Applicable to China's Present-Day 
Economy, (March 29, 2007) (``Georgetown Steel Memorandum'') (memorandum 
is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of 
the main Department building (``CRU'') on the record of case number C-
570-907), China's economy has evolved significantly over time and its 
present-day economy ``features both a certain degree of private 
initiative as well as significant government intervention, combining 
market processes with continued state guidance.'' Id. at 7. Further, 
the Department found that while private industry now dominates many 
sectors of the Chinese economy and entrepreneurship is flourishing, 
China's economy is best characterized as one in which constrained 
market mechanisms operate alongside (and sometimes, in spite of) 
government plans. Id. at 9-10. Although the limits the PRC Government 
has placed on the role of market forces are not consistent with 
recognition of China as a market economy under the U.S. antidumping 
law, the evolution in China's economy nevertheless has led the 
Department to conclude that it is possible to determine whether the 
state has bestowed a benefit upon a Chinese producer (i.e., a subsidy 
can be identified and measured) and whether any such benefit is 
specific. Id. at 9. See also Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's 
Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination, 72 FR 17484 (April 9, 2007). The Department also stated 
in the Georgetown Steel Memorandum that the evolution of China's 
economy together with the features and characteristics of China's 
present-day economy, including a growing private sector, suggest that 
modification of some aspects of the Department's current NME 
antidumping policy and practice with regard to China may be warranted, 
such as the conditions under which the Department might grant an 
individual respondent in China market-economy treatment in some or all 
respects.

Request for Comment

    Given the Department's analysis in the March 29, 2007 Georgetown 
Steel Memorandum regarding China's present-day economy, the Department 
is requesting public comment on the conditions under which the 
Department might grant market-economy treatment to individual Chinese 
respondents, and, if so, how this might affect our antidumping duty 
calculations for such enterprises. The Department does not preclude the 
possibility that market-economy treatment for individual respondents in 
non-market economies other than China might be warranted. At this time 
however, the Department has only examined China's economy on a country-
wide basis.
    As noted above, the Department currently has a test to determine 
whether an industry is market-oriented. However, no industry in China 
has yet been granted MOI status. Given the high standard that must be 
met for an industry to obtain MOI status, the Department requests that 
parties focus their comments on the conditions and factors that would 
guide the Department's assessment of the market-orientation of 
individual respondents, as opposed to industries. In submitting 
comments, we ask parties to consider whether and how a market-oriented 
enterprise or limited market-oriented enterprise should be identified 
and to what extent the Department should rely on a market-oriented 
enterprise's prices and costs, particularly for those inputs that are 
inextricably linked to the broader operating economic environment, 
i.e., labor, land and capital, factors of production that were 
discussed at length in the Department's recent assessment of China's 
status as an NME in the antidumping duty investigation of certain lined 
paper products from China. See Memorandum for David M. Spooner, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China (``China'') China's Status as a Non-Market Economy 
(``NME'') (August 30, 2006) (memorandum is on file in the CRU on the 
record of case number A-570-901). In finding that China continues to be 
an NME for purposes of U.S. antidumping law, the Department determined 
that, despite considerable reforms, the PRC government ``retains for 
itself considerable levers of control over the economy.'' Id. at 4. 
Accordingly, while an enterprise may be market-oriented, the cost of 
certain inputs obtained in the broader economy may necessarily be 
determined on a non-market basis. Given such a situation in China, we 
request parties to consider to what extent, if any, a finding of a 
market-oriented enterprise might be limited and how a respondent's 
prices and costs within China could be utilized together with certain 
surrogate prices and costs in our antidumping duty calculations.

Submission of Comments

    Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and ten 
copies of each set of comments by the date specified above. The 
Department will consider all comments received before the close of the 
comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period
    will be considered if time permits. The Department will not accept 
comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be 
treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or 
for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and 
materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider 
them in the development of any changes to its practice. The Department 
requires that comments be submitted in written form. The Department 
recommends submission of comments in electronic form to accompany the 
required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be 
submitted either by e-mail to the webmaster below, or on CD-ROM, as 
comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal 
radiation treatment.
    Comments will be made available to the public in Portable Document 
Format (``PDF'') on the Internet at the Import Administration website 
at the following address: https://www.trade.gov/ia/.
    Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, 
access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be 
addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at 
(202)

[[Page 29304]]

482-0866, email address: webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov.

    Dated: May 18, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-10130 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.