a final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(1)-(4); 19 C.F.R. § 351.308(c)(1)(i)—(iii) (2014). Wheré Commerce countervails a subsidy program at an AFA rate, neither the statute nor the regulation dictate how Commerce is to determine that rate. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(1)-(4); 19 C.F.R. § 351.308(c)(1). Therefore, Commerce has considerable discretion to develop a methodology for calculating an AFA rate derived from one of the sources listed in the statute. An AFA rate selected by Commerce must also reasonably balance the objectives of inducing compliance and determining an accurate rate. See F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). The statute does not require Commerce to
holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract holding that commerces inference of a greater than de minimis separate rate is supported by substantial evidence is not the equivalent of applying afa to separate rate respondents and does not impermissibly consider rates from subsequent stages rather using them permissibly for corroboration holding the corroboration requirement tempers the deterrent value of an afa rate to prevent overreaching reality to maximize deterrence holding that with respect to the eaja the local or national market rate for legal services cannot be a special factor used to increase the rate beyond the statutory rate holding that once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate