The EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) will tier to the Final EIS and ROD for the Manti-La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest Plan provides the overall guidance (goals, objections, standards, and management area direction) to achieve the desired future condition for the area being analyzed, and contains specific management area prescriptions for the entire forest.

Issues and alternatives to be evaluated in the analysis will be determined through scoping. The primary issues are expected to include the socioeconomic benefits of mining, the potential impacts of underground mining and mining-induced subsidence and seismicity to surface and ground water, vegetation, wildlife, cultural resources, range improvements, recreation, man-made features, and other land uses.

Agency representatives and other interested people are invited to visit with Forest Service at any time during the EIS process. Two specific time periods are identified for the receipt of formal comments on the analysis. The two comment periods are, (1) during the scoping process, the next 30 days following publication of this notice in the Federal Register and (2) during the foreman review period of the Draft EIS.

The Draft EIS is estimated to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in August, 2004. At that time the EPA will publish an availability notice in the Federal Register . The comment period on the Draft EIS will be 45 days from the date that EPA's notice of availability appears in the Federal Register. The Final EIS is expected to be released in January, 2005.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft Environmental Impact Statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft Environmental Impact Statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final Environmental Impact Statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final Environmental Impact Statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Agenda topics include discussions on Forest Service recreation projects that may need funding, RAC logo and receiving public comment. If the meeting date or location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Daily Interlake based in Kalispell, MT.

The environmental assessment of the federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Donald W. Gohmert, State Conservationist, has determined that preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed for this project.

The project will protect critically eroding portions of the east bank Bayou Rigolettes by constructing about 28,000 feet of shoreline protection (rock revetment).

The notice of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data collected during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Donald W. Gohmert.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register .

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

The Department received timely requests from Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd (“Luqi”) on April 29, 2003, and from Qingdao Rotec Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (“Rotec”) and Anda Industries Co., Ltd. (“Anda”) on April 30, 2003, for new shipper reviews of this antidumping duty order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c).

On April 30, 2003, the petitioner 2 requested an administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b) for 20 exporters, 3 five of which are included in five exporter/producer combinations 4 that received zero rates in the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation and thus were excluded from the antidumping duty order only with respect to brake rotors sold through the specified exporter/producer combinations.

On May 16, 2003, Luqi, Rotec and Anda agreed to waive the time limits applicable to the new shipper review and to permit the Department to conduct the new shipper review concurrently with the administrative review.

On May 21, 2003, the Department initiated an administrative review covering the companies listed in the petitioner's April 30, 2003, request ( see Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 68 FR 27781 (May 21, 2003)).

On May 30, 2003, the Department initiated a new shipper review of Anda, Luqi and Rotec ( see Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of the Ninth New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review , 68 FR 33675 (June 5, 2003)).

On June 5, 2003, the Department issued a questionnaire to each company listed in the above-referenced initiation notices.

On June 17, 2003, the Department provided the parties an opportunity to submit publicly available information for consideration in these preliminary results. Also on June 17, 2003, Anda timely withdrew its request for a new shipper review. Accordingly, we rescinded the new shipper review with respect to Anda on July 8, 2003 ( see Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of the Ninth New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review , 68 FR 41555 (July 14, 2003)), and sent appropriate instructions to CBP on July 31, 2003, terminating the bonding option on shipments of subject merchandise exported and produced by Anda and requiring a cash deposit on such shipments at the PRC-wide rate.

In July 2003, each of the exporters that received a zero rate in the LTFV investigation stated that during the POR, it did not make U.S. sales of brake rotors produced by companies other than those included in its respective excluded exporter/producer combination. Also in July 2003, we received responses to the Department's questionnaires from the remaining companies. Of these companies, Shanxi Fengkun, Hengtai, Golden Harvest and Xumingyuan each stated that it had no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

On August 8, 2003, the petitioner submitted comments to the respondents' questionnaire responses. On August 15, 2003, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to each company which submitted a questionnaire response.

On August 25, 2003, the Department conducted a data query on brake rotor entries made during the POR from all exporters named in the excluded exporter/producer combinations and from the four exporters named above ( i.e. , Shanxi Fengkun, Hengtai, Golden Harvest and Xumingyuan) in order to substantiate their claims that they made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. As a result of the data query, the Department requested that CBP confirm the actual manufacturer for 11 specific entries associated with the excluded exporter/producer combinations ( see the September 29, 2003, memorandum from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Program Manager, to Michael S. Craig of the CBP (“September 29, 2003, memorandum”)). Also on August 25, 2003, the petitioner and respondents submitted publicly available information.

In August and September 2003, the companies submitted their responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires. In September 2003, the petitioner submitted comments on the supplemental questionnaire responses of several companies. On October 2, 2003, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to 10 companies, and these companies submitted their second supplemental responses in October and November 2003. The petitioner submitted comments on the second supplemental responses in October 2003. The Department issued GREN and Meita a third supplemental questionnaire in October 2003, to which responses were submitted in November 2003.

On October 8, 2003, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary results until February 2, 2004 ( see Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews , 68 FR 59583 (October 16, 2003)).

On October 27, 2003, we notified Longkou Haimeng, LABEC, Luqi and Rotec of our intent to conduct verification of their responses to the antidumping duty questionnaire, and provided each respondent with a verification outline for purposes of familiarizing it with the verification process. The petitioner submitted comments on these verification outlines in October and November 2003.

On October 31, 2003, LABEC submitted corrections to its U.S. sales listing and factors of production listing. On November 3, 2003, Huanri General, Meita, Hongfa, Longkou Haimeng each submitted corrections to its factors of production listing. On November 6, 2003, the petitioner filed an objection to Huanri General's, Meita's and Hongfa's November 3, 2003, submissions.

On November 12, 2003, Rotec notified the Department that it was no longer able to participate in the new shipper review and subsequently withdrew its new shipper review request. From November 5 to November 21, 2003, the Department conducted verification of the information submitted by Longkou Haimeng, Luqi and LABEC in accordance with 19 CFR 351.307. On November 10, 14 and 21, 2003, respectively, these companies submitted the minor corrections to their responses that they presented to the Department verifiers at the start of verification. On November 17 and 25, 2003, the petitioner filed comments on the minor corrections submitted by Longkou Haimeng and LABEC, respectively, at verification. On December 10, 2003, we returned the revised U.S. sales listing submitted by LABEC on November 21, 2003, because we neither requested nor accepted this revised listing at verification. On December 15, 2003, LABEC resubmitted its minor corrections with the U.S. sales listing omitted. ( See the Department's memo re: Issues Related to Preliminary Results, dated March 1, 2004.)

On December 12, 2003, the petitioner submitted comments on the Department's September 29, 2003, memorandum. On December 19, 2003, the Department issued a memorandum to the file in response to the petitioner's December 12, 2003, submission. 5

On December 17 and 22, 2003, we issued verification reports for Longkou Haimeng, LABEC and Luqi. ( See December 17 and 22, 2003, verification reports for Longkou Haimeng and LABEC, respectively, in the Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and December 22, 2003, verification report for Luqi in the Ninth Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review.)

On December 22, 2003, the Department issued a memorandum to the file notifying parties of our intent to issue a final rescission decision with respect to Rotec in the context of these preliminary results and invited interested parties to comment on our intent to rescind the new shipper review with respect to Rotec (see December 22, 2003, memorandum to the file). No comments were filed.

On January 14, 2004, the petitioner submitted comments on the verification reports of Longkou Haimeng, LABEC and Luqi.

On January 30, 2004, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary results until March 3, 2004 ( see Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews , 69 FR 6253 (February 10, 2004)).

On February 3, 2004, we requested additional clarification of LKTLC's responses. LKTLC submitted its response on February 13, 2004.

The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under “one ton and a half,” and light trucks designated as “one ton and a half.”

Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some grinding or turning.

These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) which produces vehicles sold in the United States. ( e.g. , General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in this order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms).

Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

The POR covers April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information provided by Longkou Haimeng, LABEC and Luqi. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of their facilities and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification report for each company ( see December 17, 2003, verification report for Longkou Haimeng and December 22, 2003, verification reports for LABEC and Luqi for further discussion).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined that the exporters which are part of the five exporter/producer combinations which received zero rates in the LTFV investigation and the four exporters that made no shipment claims did not make shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Specifically, (1) Xinjiang did not export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Zibo Botai; (2) CAIEC did not export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Laizhou CAPCO; (3) Laizhou CAPCO did not export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Laizhou CAPCO; (4) Laizhou Luyuan did not export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Shenyang or Laizhou Luyuan; (5) Shenyang did not export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Laizhou Luyuan or Shenyang; and (6) Shanxi Fengkun, Hengtai, Golden Harvest or Xumingyuan made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

In order to make this determination, we first examined PRC brake rotor shipment data maintained by CBP. We then selected certain entries associated with the exporter/producer combinations identified above and requested CBP to provide documentation which would enable the Department to determine who manufactured the brake rotors included in those entries. Based on the information obtained from CBP, we found no instances where the exporters included in the five exporter-producer combinations shipped brake rotors from the PRC to the U.S. market outside of their excluded export/producer combinations during the POR. ( See March 1, 2004, memorandum to the file, Results of Request for Assistance from Customs and Border Protection to Further Examine U.S. Entries Made by Exporter/Producer Combinations - Preliminary Results.) With respect to Shanxi Fengkun, Hengtai, Golden Harvest and Xumingyuan, the results of the CBP data query indicated that there were no shipments of subject merchandise made by these companies during the POR ( see March 1, 2004, memorandum to the file, Review of Customs and Border Protection Data on Brake Rotor Entries from Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company, Shanxi Fengkun Metallurgical Limited Company, Xianghe Xumingyuan Auto Parts Co., and Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd.).

Therefore, based on the results of our query, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to all of the above-mentioned companies because we found no evidence that these companies made shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR.

The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1) provide that the Department may rescind a new shipper review ”... if a party that requested a review withdraws its request no later than 60 days after the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” Rotec withdrew its request for new shipper review on November 12, 2003. Although Rotec's withdrawal is more than 60 days from the date of initiation, consistent with the Department's past practice in the context of administrative reviews conducted under section 751(a) of the Act, the Department has discretion to extend the time period for withdrawal on a case-by-case basis. ( See e.g. Iron Construction Castings from Canada: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 63 FR 45797 (August 27, 1998).) In this case, the Department has determined to grant the request to rescind this new shipper review with respect to Rotec because rescission of this review would not prejudice any party in this proceeding, as Rotec would continue to be included in the PRC-wide rate to which it was subject at the time of its request for a new shipper review. ( See Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of New Shipper Review , 64 FR 40831 (July 28, 1999).)

In proceedings involving non-market-economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate ( i.e. , a PRC-wide rate).

Of the 12 respondents participating in these reviews, three of the PRC companies ( i.e. , Hongfa, Meita and Winhere) are wholly foreign-owned. Thus, for these three companies, because we have no evidence indicating that they are under the control of the PRC government, a separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether they are independent from government control ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China , 64 FR 71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999); Preliminary Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 66703, 66705 (November 7, 2000); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China , 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996)(““”)).

The remaining nine respondents ( i.e. , Longkou Haimeng, CNIM, LABEC, LKTLC, Luqi, GREN, Hongda, Huanri General and ZLAP) are either joint ventures between PRC and foreign companies, collectively-owned enterprises and/or limited liability companies in the PRC. Thus, for these nine respondents, a separate rates analysis is necessary to determine whether the exporters are independent from government control over export activities ( see Bicycles , at 61 FR 56570). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent in its export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department utilizes a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ Sparklers ”), and amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ Silicon Carbide ”). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.

Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; 2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and 3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.

Longkou Haimeng, CNIM, LABEC, LKTLC, Luqi, GREN, Hongda, Huanri General and ZLAP have each placed on the administrative record documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control ( e.g. , the “Regulations of the PRC for Controlling the Registration of Enterprises as Legal Persons,” promulgated on June 3, 1988; the 1990 “The Regulations Governing the Rural Collective Owned Enterprises of the PRC;” and the 1994 “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China”).

As in prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found them to establish sufficiently an absence of de jure control of joint ventures between the PRC and foreign companies, collectively-owned enterprises and limited liability companies in the PRC. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) (“ Furfuryl Alcohol ”), and Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995). We have no new information in this proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this determination with regard to Longkou Haimeng, CNIM, LABEC, LKTLC, Luqi, GREN, Hongda, Huanri General or ZLAP.

As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol . Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a governmental authority; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses ( see Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol ).

Longkou Haimeng, CNIM, LABEC, LKTLC, Luqi, GREN, Hongda, Huanri General and ZLAP have each asserted the following: (1) it establishes its own export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, each of these companies' questionnaire responses indicates that its pricing during the POR does not suggest coordination among exporters.

In this segment of the proceeding, the Department selected four respondents for verification, namely Longkou Haimeng, LABEC, Luqi and Rotec. 6 The Department did not select the other nine respondents ( i.e. , CNIM, LKTLC, GREN, Hongda, Huanri General, Winhere, Hongfa, Meita and ZLAP) for verification.

For Longkou Haimeng, LABEC and Luqi, the Department found no evidence at verification of government involvement in their business operations. Specifically, Department officials examined sales documents that showed that each of these respondents negotiated its contracts and set its own sales prices with its customers. In addition, the Department reviewed sales documentation, bank statements and accounting documentation that demonstrated that each of these respondents received payment from its U.S. customers via bank wire transfer, which was deposited into its own bank account without government intervention. Finally, the Department examined internal company memoranda such as appointment notices, which demonstrated that each of these companies selected its own management. See pages 7 and 8 of the Department's verification report for Longkou Haimeng, pages 6 and 7 of the Department's verification report for LABEC and pages 4 through 7 of the Department's verification report for Luqi. This information, taken in its entirety, supports a finding that there is a de facto absence of governmental control of each of these companies' export functions.

With regard to CNIM, LKTLC, GREN, Hongda, Huanri General and ZLAP ( i.e. , the other six respondents subject to the separate rates test in this review), the Department elected not to verify these companies' responses in accordance with section 351.307(b)(3) of the Department's regulations. Based on documentation contained in each company's responses, the Department also finds that each of these six respondents: (1) negotiated its own contracts; (2) set its own sales prices with its customers; (3) retained its profits and, where applicable, arranged its own financing; and (4) selected its own management ( see each respondent's section A questionnaire responses submitted in July 2003).

Consequently, we have determined that Longkou Haimeng, CNIM, LABEC, LKTLC, Luqi, GREN, Hongda, Huanri General and ZLAP have each met the criteria for the application of separate rates either through documentation submitted on the record subject to verification or through actual verification. See Notice of Final Determination at Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates from the People's Republic of China , 62 FR 27222 (May 19, 1997).

To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by CNIM, GREN, Longkou Haimeng, Huanri General, Hongda, Hongfa, LABEC, Meita, Winhere, LKTLC, Luqi and ZLAP to the United States were made at prices below normal value (“NV”), we compared each company's export prices (“EPs”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price,” “Constructed Export Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below.

For each respondent, we used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act for sales in which the subject merchandise was first sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and constructed export price (“CEP”) was not otherwise indicated.

We calculated EP based on packed, FOB foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate rates from India ( see “Surrogate Country” section below for further discussion of our surrogate-country selection). To value foreign inland trucking charges, we used truck freight rates published in Indian Chemical Weekly and distance information obtained from the following websites: http://www.infreight.com, http://www.sitaindia.com/Packages/CityDistance.php, http://www.abcindia.com, http://www.eindiatourism.com, and http://www.mapsofindia.com. To value foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we relied on 10/99-9/00 information reported in the public U.S. sales listing submitted by Essar Steel Ltd. in the antidumping investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value , 67 FR 50406 (October 3, 2001).

We calculated EP based on packed, CIF, CFR, C&F or FOB foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, marine insurance, U.S. import duties and fees (including harbor maintenance fees, merchandise processing fees, and brokerage and handling) and international freight, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. As all foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued these services using the Indian surrogate values discussed above. For all six respondents (except Longkou Haimeng 7 ), we valued marine insurance based on a publicly available price quote from a marine insurance provider obtained from http://www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html, as used in the antidumping duty investigation of Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Investigation , 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003) . For international freight ( i.e. , ocean freight and U.S. inland freight expenses from the U.S. port to the warehouse (where applicable)), we used the reported expenses because each of these six respondents used market-economy freight carriers and paid for those expenses in a market-economy currency ( see, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review , 64 FR 9972, 9974 (March 1, 1999)).

For U.S. import duties incurred on GREN's sales, we revised the reported expenses because the per-unit amounts reported in GREN's U.S. sales database did not comport with the corresponding calculation worksheets in exhibit 17 of its July 21, 2003, response. To recalculate the U.S. import duties, we multiplied the U.S. duty percentage applicable to brake rotors (inclusive of harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees) against the gross unit price (net of movement expenses as appropriate).

Based on our verification findings, we made the following revisions to the U.S. sales data reported by LABEC: (1) we included one sale not previously reported and excluded two sales incorrectly reported; (2) we adjusted the gross unit price for one model number/sale; (3) we adjusted the international freight expense for certain sales; and (4) we excluded sales determined to be made to third-country markets. ( See pages 4, 5, 9, 11 and 12 of LABEC's verification report and the Department's memo re: Issues Related to Preliminary Results, dated March 1, 2004.)

For GREN, we also calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. We found that some of GREN's sales during the POR were CEP sales because the sales were made for the account of GREN by its subsidiary in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers. We based CEP on packed, delivered or ex-warehouse prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, international freight (i.e., ocean freight and U.S. inland freight from the U.S. port to the warehouse), marine insurance, U.S. import duties, and U.S. inland freight expenses ( i.e. , freight from the plant to the customer). As all foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, and marine insurance expenses were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued these services using the Indian surrogate values discussed above. For international freight (where applicable), we used the reported expense because the respondent used a market-economy freight carrier and paid for those expenses in a market-economy currency.

As mentioned above, we revised the U.S. import duties calculation. In addition, we revised the U.S. inland freight expense applicable to those sales with “delivered” sales terms ( i.e. , freight from the warehouse to the customer) because the data in the U.S. sales database did not reflect the data reported in the corresponding calculation worksheet in exhibit 16 of the July 21, 2003, response. For the remaining sales in the U.S. sales database with “pick-up” sales terms, we set this expense to zero as it was not applicable.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (commissions and credit expenses), and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) incurred in the United States. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority ( see Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China , 66 FR 52100, 52103 (October 12, 2001)). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India was among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development ( see Memorandum from the Office of Policy to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, dated June 16, 2003). In addition, based on publicly available information placed on the record ( e.g. , Indian producer financial statements), India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we considered India the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection.

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited to: (A) hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the factors reported by each of the 12 respondents, which produced the brake rotors it exported to the United States during the POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian values.

Based on our verification findings at Longkou Haimeng, we revised the following data in its response: (1) the reported weights for plastic bags and plastic sheets; and (2) the reported method of delivery of firewood to Longkou Haimeng's facility ( see pages 4, 18 and 20 of Longkou Haimeng's verification report).

Based on our verification findings at LABEC, we revised the reported per-unit weight for plastic bags for all models ( see pages 4, 17 and 18 of LABEC's verification report). In addition, on October 31, 2003, LABEC revised its U.S. sales listing to include two invoices that were inadvertently omitted. One of these invoices related to a brake rotor model, the factors of production of which were not reported in LABEC's factors of production database. As a result, the Department applied the formulas in exhibit 14 of the July 16, 2003, response and exhibit 3 of the October 21, 2003, response to derive the model-specific consumption factors, with the exception of packing materials factors. For packing materials, we used the packing material consumption factors for the only brake rotor model with the same diameter, width and weight as the model excluded from the factors of production database.

Based on our verification findings at Luqi, we revised the following data in its response: (1) the reported per-unit weight for plastic sheet reported for five models; and (2) the reported per-unit consumption amounts for limestone for all models ( see pages 3, 11, 12, 13 and 15 of Luqi's verification report).

The Department's selection of the surrogate values applied in this determination was based on the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. We added to Indian surrogate values surrogate freight costs using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corporation v. United States , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For those values not contemporaneous with the POR and quoted in a foreign currency, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics . ( See Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum, dated March 1, 2004, for a detailed explanation of the methodology used to calculate surrogate values.)

To value pig iron, steel scrap, ferrosilicon, ferromanganese, limestone, lug nuts, ball bearing cups, lubrication oil, coking coal, and firewood, we used April 2002-March 2003 average import values downloaded from the World Trade Atlas Trade Information System (Internet Version 4.3e) (WTA) . We relied on the factor specification data submitted by the respondents for the above-mentioned inputs in their questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses, as verified by the Department, where applicable, for purposes of selecting surrogate values from WTA . Certain respondents ( i.e. , Luqi, Longkou Haimeng, Huanri General, LABEC, CNIM, LKTLC and ZLAP) stated in their responses that they did not incur an expense for ball bearing cups and lug nuts because their U.S. customer provided these items to them free of charge. In support of their claim that they incurred no expense for these items, each of these respondents provided customer correspondence. We also examined inventory and accounting records relevant to these items during the verification of the questionnaire responses of Longkou Haimeng, LABEC and Luqi. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have not valued these items for those respondents. ( See the Department's memo re: Issues Related to Preliminary Results, dated March 1, 2004.)

We also added an amount for loading and additional transportation charges associated with delivering coal to the factory based on June 1999 Indian price data contained in the periodical Business Line .

We based our surrogate value for electricity on 2001 data from the International Energy Agency's (“IEA”) report, “Electricity Prices for Industry,” contained in the 2002 Key World Energy Statistics from the IEA .

We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To value selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, factory overhead and profit, we used the 2000-2001 financial data of Kalyani Brakes Limited (“Kalyani”) and Rico Auto Industries Limited (“Rico”), and the 2001-2002 financial data of Mando Brake Systems India Limited (“Mando”). Where appropriate, we removed from the surrogate overhead and SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed in the financial reports.

To value corrugated paper cartons, nails, plastic bags, plastic sheets/covers, paper sheet, steel strip and straps/buckles, tape and pallet wood, we used April 2002-March 2003 average import values from WTA . Because there was no Indian import data available for tin clamps/buckles during the period April 2002-March 2003, we used April 2001-March 2002 import values from WTA to value this input, and we adjusted the average value calculated for inflation. All respondents (with the exception of LKTLC) included the weight of the straps/buckles in their reported steel strip weights since the material of both inputs was the same. Therefore, we valued these factors using the combined weight reported by the respondents.

All inputs were shipped by truck. Therefore, to value PRC inland freight, we used freight rates published in Indian Chemical Weekly and distance information obtained from the following websites: http://www.infreight.com, http://www.sitaindia.com/Packages/CityDistance.php, http://www.abcindia.com, http://eindiatourism.com, and http://www.mapsofindia.com.

We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist during the period April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003:

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held on May 24, 2004.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted no later than May 10, 2004. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due no later than May 17, 2004. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final results of these reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of issuance of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer- or customer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. Where the respondent did not report actual entered value, we will calculate individual importer- or customer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. To determine whether the per-unit duty assessment rates are de minimis ( i.e. , less than 0.50 percent), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer- or customer-specific ad valorem ratios based on export prices. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer or customer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis .

Upon completion of these reviews, for entries from CNIM, Hongfa, LABEC, Luqi, Hongda, Longkou Haimeng, LKTLC, GREN, Meita, Huanri General, Winhere and ZLAP, we will require cash deposits at the rate established in the final results as further described below.

Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments of brake rotors from the PRC produced and exported by Luqi that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final result of the new shipper review. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the new shipper review for all shipments of subject merchandise from Luqi entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date: (1) for subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Luqi, no cash deposit will be required if the cash deposit rate calculated in the final results is zero or de minimis ; and (2) for subject merchandise exported by Luqi but not manufactured by Luqi, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC countrywide rate ( i.e. , 43.32 percent).

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the administrative review for all shipments of brake rotors from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for CNIM, Hongfa, LABEC, Hongda, Longkou Haimeng, LKTLC, GREN, Meita, Huanri General, Winhere, and ZLAP will be the rates determined in the final results of review (except that if a rate is de minimis, i.e. , less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (3) the cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity ( e.g. , which includes Rotec) will continue to be 43.32 percent; and (4) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter.

With respect to Rotec, bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments of brake rotors from the PRC produced and exported by Rotec that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States on or after the publication of this partial final rescission determination in the Federal Register .

These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

These administrative and new shipper reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.

We published the preliminary results on November 10, 2003 (68 FR 63758), and received no comments. In the same notice, we rescinded the review with respect to Shree Ganesh Forgings Ltd.

The products under review are certain forged stainless steel flanges from India, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the review.

We made no changes from the preliminary results. For the reasons stated in our preliminary results, we determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exists for the period February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003:

The Department will determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on export prices. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates uniformly on all entries of that particular customer made during the period of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis . The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of stainless steel flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the companies reviewed, including Viraj, which has a de minimis rate, the cash deposit rates will be zero, (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the most recent segment of the proceeding in which that manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the all others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214.

On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC (64 FR 8308).

On February 3, 2003, the Department published a notice advising of the opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC (68 FR 5272). On February 25 and 28, 2003, the Department received timely requests from Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd., (“Gerber”), Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Green Fresh”), Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd. (“Guangxi Yulin”), Shantou Hongda Industrial General Corporation, (“Shantou Hongda”), and Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd. (“Shenxian Dongxing”) for an administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b).

On February 28, 2003, the Department received timely requests from Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co., Ltd. (“Primera Harvest”) and Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. (“XITIC”) for a new shipper review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c).

On February 28, 2003, the petitioner  1 requested an administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b) of 11 companies  2 which it claimed were producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. Five of these 11 companies also requested a review.

On March 12, 2003, Primera Harvest and XITIC both agreed to waive the time limits applicable to the new shipper review and to permit the Department to conduct the new shipper review concurrently with the administrative review.

On March 20, 2002, the Department initiated an administrative review covering the companies listed in the petitioner's February 28, 2003, request. ( See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews , 68 FR 14394, 14399 (March 25, 2003)).

On March 29, 2002, the Department initiated a new shipper review of Primera Harvest and XITIC. ( See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review , 68 FR 15152 (March 28, 2003)).

On April 1, 2003, we issued a questionnaire to each PRC company listed in the above-referenced initiation notices.

On May 1, 2003, the Department provided the parties an opportunity to submit publicly available information (“PAI”) for consideration in these preliminary results.

On May 7, 2003, the respondents Raoping Xingyu and Shenzhen Qunxingyuan each indicated that neither company had shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

On May 13, 2003, Minhui and Zhongjia each filed submissions with the Department certifying that neither company had any shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR other than the sale each reported in a prior new shipper review (the POR of which overlapped with the POR of this administrative review).

From May 12 through June 13, 2003, COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, Primera Harvest, Shantou Hongda, and Shenxian Dongxing submitted their responses to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire.

As a result of not receiving its response to the antidumping duty questionnaire, the Department issued a letter to Zhangzhou Jingxiang on May 29, 2003, which provided this company with an additional two weeks of time to respond to the Department's questionnaire. We received no reply to this letter or response to the questionnaire from this company.

On June 12, 2003, the petitioner requested an extension until July 10, 2003, to withdraw any request for review of companies listed in its February 28, 2003, communication, which the Department granted on June 16, 2003.

From June 25 through July 18, 2003, the petitioner submitted comments on the questionnaire responses provided by COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, Primera Harvest, Shantou Hongda, and Shenxian Dongxing.

On July 10, 2003, the petitioner requested an extension of time until August 18, 2003, to submit factual information in this case, which the Department granted on July 22, 2003.

From July 28 through August 15, 2003, the Department issued COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, Primera Harvest, Shantou Hongda, and Shenxian Dongxing a supplemental questionnaire.

On August 7, 2003, the Department issued a memorandum which notified the interested parties of its intent to rescind the new shipper review with respect to XITIC because it failed to provide proper certifications in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b)(ii)(B) based on data contained in its questionnaire response. We provided parties until August 21, 2003, to comment on the Department's intent to rescind the review with respect to XITIC. No parties submitted comments.

Also on August 7, 2003, the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review of Minhui and Zhongjia.

On August 15, 2003, the petitioner, COFCO, and Guangxi Yulin submitted PAI for use in valuing the factors of production. On September 2, 2003, COFCO and Guangxi Yulin submitted additional PAI.

On August 20, 2003, Minhui and Zhongjia requested that the Department conduct a review of their sales and factors of production data in the context of the administrative review and on September 15, 2003, they requested that the Department place their data on the record of the administrative review. On September 2, and 23, 2003, the petitioner objected to both above-noted requests made by Minhui and Zhongjia.

From August 28 through September 15, 2003, the respondents submitted their responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaire.

On September 24, 2003, Shantou Hongda indicated that it would not participate in verification.

On October 3, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of postponement of the preliminary results until no later than March 1, 2004 (68 FR 57424).

On October 9, 2003, the Department rescinded the new shipper review with respect to XITIC. ( See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Sixth New Shipper Review, 68 FR 59586 (October 16, 2003).)

From September through November 2003, the petitioner submitted additional comments on the questionnaire responses provided by COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, Primera Harvest, and Shenxian Dongxing.

In October 2003, the Department issued Primera Harvest and Shenxian Dongxing second supplemental questionnaires and also received these companies' responses to those supplemental questionnaires. Also in October 2003, the Department issued verification outlines to Primera Harvest and Shenxian Dongxing.

The Department conducted verification of the responses of Primera Harvest and Shenxian Dongxing during the period October 28 through November 21, 2003. On December 12, 2003, the Department issued the verification report for Shenxian Dongxing. On January 30, 2004, the Department issued the verification report for Primera Harvest.

On November 3, 2003, the Department rescinded the administrative review with respect to Minhui and Zhongjia. ( See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review, 68 FR 63065 (November 3, 2003).)

From October to December 2003, the Department issued COFCO two supplemental questionnaires and Gerber and Green Fresh a second supplemental questionnaire, and received responses from these companies during the period November 2003 to January 2004.

From December 10, 2003, to January 6, 2004, Department officials met with counsel for the petitioner and COFCO to discuss whether or not COFCO's affiliated preserved mushroom producers should also be required to report their factors of production ( see ex parte memoranda to the file dated December 22, 2003, and January 7, 2004).

In January 2004, the Department issued COFCO a fourth supplemental questionnaire which addressed its affiliations with other companies that sold and/or produced preserved mushrooms during the POR and requested COFCO to provide factors of production data for those companies. In January and February 2004, COFCO submitted its responses.

In February 2004, the petitioner submitted pre-preliminary results comments on the data provided by all respondents in these reviews. ( See company-specific calculation memoranda dated March 1, 2004, for further discussion.)

The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. “Preserved mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms''; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives. 3

The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

The POR is February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003.

As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the Act, we verified information provided by Primera Harvest and Shenxian Dongxing. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' and exporters' facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification report for each company. (For further discussion, see December 12, 2003, verification report for Shenxian Dongxing in the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (“Shenxian Dongxing verification report”); and January 30, 2004, verification report for Primera Harvest in the Sixth Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review (“Primera Harvest verification report”).)

We are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Zhangzhou Jingxiang because the shipment data we examined did not show U.S. entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from this company.

The petitioner contends that Primera Harvest is not a bona fide new shipper and therefore, the Department should rescind its new shipper review. Among other things, the petitioner claims that the respondent is affiliated with other companies which produced and exported preserved mushrooms from Chile and which are subject to an antidumping duty order. Morever, the petitioner argues that through its past and present affiliations, Primera Harvest's overseer and part owner has been involved in selling practices in the past, and during the POR, which circumvented the antidumping duty orders on certain preserved mushrooms from both Chile and the PRC, a fact which alone calls into question the reliability of the data provided by Primera Harvest in this new shipper review. In addition, the petitioner claims that Primera Harvest's reported price for its sole U.S. sale during the POR was aberrationally high when compared to the average unit value of U.S. imports of comparable goods during the POR and during the month of the sale, and that the quantity of the sale was aberrationally low when compared to the average shipment size of comparable goods during the POR and during the month of the sale. Finally, the petitioner claims that Primera Harvest offers no plausible reason for why its U.S. customer would pay such a high price for a common commodity product, shipped by an unknown company that previously did not participate in the U.S. market, and with no special considerations that would justify the reported price level.

For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Primera Harvest's reported U.S. sale during the POR appears to be a bona fide sale, as required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(C), based on the totality of the facts on the record. Specifically, we find that (1) the net price of its single reported sale ( i.e. , gross unit price net of international freight and U.S. brokerage and handling, and movement expenses) was similar to the average unit value of U.S. imports of comparable canned mushrooms from the PRC during the POR; (2) the price of the sale was within the range of prices of comparable goods imported from the PRC during the POR; and (3) the price charged by Primera Harvest to its U.S. customer was similar to the prices which Primera Harvest charged to the same U.S. customer during the POR for sales of mushrooms produced in the PRC by other manufacturers. We also find that the quantity of the sale was within the range of shipment sizes of comparable goods imported from the PRC during the POR. ( See March 1, 2004, memorandum to the file for further discussion of our price and quantity analysis.)

Although the petitioner states that the person who oversees Primera Harvest's operations was involved in selling practices in the past which allegedly circumvented the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, this allegation does not serve as a sufficient basis to call into question the reliability of data provided by Primera Harvest in this new shipper review for a different country ( see data contained in attachment 1 of the petitioner's February 18, 2004, submission, and Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile: Final Results of Administrative Review, 67 FR 31769 (May 10, 2002) and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 2). Furthermore, the petitioner's allegations as to other questionable sales involving this individual outside of this new shipper proceeding do not pertain to the bona fides of the transaction under review ( see pages 27-28 of the Primera Harvest verification report). While the Department has scrutinized the circumstances of the transaction carefully, we have not identified information on the record that establishes that the transaction was not bona fide.

Moreover, although Primera Harvest had no other arm's-length sales of any merchandise, subject or non-subject, during or after the POR (up until the time of verification) and therefore, apparently, had no commercial income during this period, we do not find that this factor in and of itself, in light of all of the other information of record provided above, is sufficient for calling into question the bona fides of its reported U.S. sale. In addition, the Department verified that Primera Harvest was undergoing significant construction of production facilities for certain preserved mushrooms during the POR and afterward. This fact provides further evidence that this company was, and continues to be, legitimately engaged in the production and export of subject merchandise ( see pages 23-24 of the Primera Harvest verification report). Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Department preliminarily finds that Primera Harvest's sole U.S. sale during the POR was a bona fide commercial transaction.

COFCO purchased preserved mushrooms from its producer, Fujian Yu Xing Fruit & Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co. (“Yu Xing”), which it then sold to the United States during the POR. COFCO is also linked through its parent company, China National Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation (“China National”), to two other preserved mushroom producers, COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. (“COFCO Zhangzhou”) and Fujian Zishan Group Co. (“Fujian Zishan”), from which it did not purchase subject merchandise during the POR. The petitioner maintains that the Department should collapse these entities for margin calculation purposes because a significant potential for manipulation of price or production between these entities otherwise exists.

Section 771(33)(E) of the Act provides that the Department will find parties to be affiliated if any person directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds with power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization; section 771(33)(F) of the Act provides that parties are affiliated if two or more persons directly or indirectly control, or are controlled by, or under common control with any other person; and section 771(33)(G) of the Act provides that parties are affiliated if any person controls any other person. To the extent that section 771(33) of the Act does not conflict with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of the non-market economy (“NME”) provision, section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will determine that exporters and/or producers are affiliated if the facts of the case support such a finding.

In this case, COFCO holds a significant ownership share in Yu Xing ( see exhibit 2 of COFCO's November 10, 2003, submission). Moreover, COFCO and Yu Xing share a company official who is on the board of directors at both companies and whose responsibilities include (1) examining and executing the implementation of resolutions passed by the board members; (2) convening shareholder meetings; and (3) providing financial reports of each company's business performance to each company's board of directors ( see exhibit 4 of COFCO's September 9, 2003, submission; and pages 2-4 and exhibit 7 of COFCO's January 23, 2004, submission). Therefore, the Department has determined in this case that COFCO and Yu Xing are affiliated in accordance with sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act for the reasons stated above.

In addition, COFCO Zhangzhou (which also produced preserved mushrooms during the POR) appears to be affiliated with both COFCO and Yu Xing based on section 771(33) of the Act for the reasons stated below. Specifically, both COFCO and Yu Xing hold significant ownership shares in COFCO Zhangzhou ( see also exhibit 2 of COFCO's November 10, 2003, submission). Moreover, COFCO Zhangzhou shares with COFCO and Yu Xing the same company official who is also on the board of directors at COFCO Zhangzhou and who also performs the same responsibilities at COFCO Zhangzhou which he performs at COFCO and Yu Xing as described above ( see also pages 2-4 and exhibit 7 of COFCO's January 23, 2004, submission). COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing also have the same general manager ( see exhibit 5 of COFCO's January 23, 2004, submission). Therefore, the Department has determined in this case that COFCO, Yu Xing, and COFCO Zhangzhou are also affiliated in accordance with section 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act.

Furthermore, based on data contained in COFCO's questionnaire responses, COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, and Yu Xing are also affiliated, pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act, either directly or indirectly, with two other companies ( i.e. , Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. (“Xiamen Jiahua”) and Fujian Zishan) which sold and/or produced preserved mushrooms for markets other than the U.S. market during the POR. Specifically, COFCO's parent company, China National, holds a significant ownership share in Xiamen Jiahua ( see also exhibit 2 of COFCO's November 10, 2003, submission). Moreover, the same company official who is on the board of directors at COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, and Yu Xing is also on the board of directors at Xiamen Jiahua. In addition, this company official performs the same responsibilities at COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, and Yu Xing as described above, which he performs at Xiamen Jiahua ( see also pages 2-4 and exhibit 7 of COFCO's January 23, 2004, submission).

With respect to Fujian Zishan ( i.e. , another producer of preserved mushrooms during the POR), we note that Xiamen Jiahua holds a significant ownership share in Fujian Zishan and that COFCO's parent company, China National, holds a significant ownership share in Xiamen Jiahua ( see also exhibit 2 of COFCO's November 10, 2003, submission). Furthermore, we note that one of Fujian Zishan's board members also serves as the general manager at Xiamen Jiahua. In addition, we note that the same individual who certified the accuracy of COFCO's sales and factors of production data also certified to the accuracy of Fujian Zishan's factors of production. Accordingly, we find that COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, Yu Xing, Fujian Zishan, and Xiamen Jiahua are affiliated through the common control of COFCO's parent company pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act. Furthermore, given that there are shared individuals in positions of control and/or influence between and among these companies as discussed above, we also find sufficient control exists between these entities to believe that Fujian Zishan is affiliated with COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, Yu Xing, and Xiamen Jiahua in accordance with section 771(33)(G) of the Act.

Based on the ownership ties described above, the Department requested COFCO to (1) report the factors of production data from each company listed above if it produced preserved mushrooms during the POR; and (2) provide information on the relationship between and among these companies for purposes of determining whether the Department should collapse any or all of them in the preliminary results ( see January 8, 2004, supplemental questionnaire for details).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the Department will collapse producers and treat them as a single entity where (1) those producers are affiliated, (2) the producers have production facilities for producing similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities, and (3) there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production. In determining whether a significant potential for manipulation exists, the regulations provide that the Department may consider various factors, including (1) the level of common ownership, (2) the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm, and (3) whether the operations of the affiliated firms are intertwined. ( See Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12764, 12774 (March 16, 1998) and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails from Taiwan, 62 FR 51427, 51436 (October 1, 1997).) To the extent that this provision does not conflict with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of the NME provision, section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will collapse two or more affiliated entities in a case involving an NME country if the facts of the case warrant such treatment. Furthermore, we note that the factors listed in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) are not exhaustive, and in the context of an NME investigation or administrative review, other factors unique to the relationship of business entities within the NME may lead the Department to determine that collapsing is either warranted or unwarranted, depending on the facts of the case. See Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 03-17, 36 (February 13, 2003) (noting that the application of collapsing in the NME context may differ from the standard factors listed in the regulation).

In summary, depending upon the facts of each investigation or administrative review, if there is evidence of significant ownership ties or control between or among producers which produce similar and/or identical merchandise but may not all produce their product for sale to the United States, the Department may find such evidence sufficient to apply the collapsing criteria in an NME context in order to determine whether all or some of those affiliated producers should be treated as one entity ( see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China, Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001)).

Based on data contained in its supplemental questionnaire responses, COFCO indicated that only COFCO Zhangzhou, Fujian Zishan, and Yu Xing produced preserved mushrooms during the POR. Therefore, we find that the first and second collapsing criteria are met here because these companies are affiliated as explained above and all have production facilities for producing similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling in order to restructure manufacturing priorities ( see factors of production data submitted by each company in COFCO's February 9, 2004, submission).

Finally, we find that the third collapsing criterion is met in this case because a significant potential for manipulation of price or production exists among COFCO Zhangzhou, Yu Xing, and Fujian Zishan for the following reasons. As explained above, there is a level of common ownership between and among these companies. Second, also as discussed above, a significant level of common control exists among these companies. Third, we find that the operations of COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, Yu Xing, and Fujian Zishan are sufficiently intertwined. Specifically, since the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation, COFCO has shifted its source of supply among these affiliates. Fujian Zishan's factors data was initially used for purposes of determining COFCO's dumping margin in the LTFV investigation of this proceeding ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Market Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, 72258 (December 31, 1998)). Moreover, we note that during the POR Fujian Zishan supplied preserved mushrooms to Xiamen Jiahua, and Yu Xing supplied preserved mushrooms to COFCO ( see page exhibit 1 of COFCO's February 9, 2004, submission and page 4 of COFCO's November 10, 2003, submission).

Therefore, based on the above-mentioned findings and following the guidance of 19 CFR 351.401(f), we have preliminarily collapsed the three producers noted above because there is a significant potential for manipulation between these parties. ( See March 1, 2004, memorandum from Office Director to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for further discussion.)

In its questionnaire response, Green Fresh stated that when its general manager is not present in the United States, the daily operations of its U.S. subsidiary, Green Mega, are managed by an individual who owns a U.S. company which purchased the subject merchandise directly from Green Fresh during the POR. This individual is also an employee at another U.S. company which also purchased the subject merchandise directly from Green Fresh during the POR.

Section 771(33)(G) of the Act states that “any person who controls any other person and such other person” shall be considered to be “affiliated.” Further, “a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.”

Therefore, because Green Fresh, Green Mega, and two of its U.S. customers during the POR appeared to be affiliated in accordance with section 771(33)(G) of the Act, we issued Green Fresh a supplemental questionnaire which requested Green Fresh to provide the data for its sales to its two U.S. customers (for which the unnamed individual mentioned above was either the owner of or an employee in those companies), as well as Green Mega's sales to its U.S. customers.

Even though it appears that Green Mega and two of Green Fresh's U.S. customers may be affiliated under section 771(33)(G) of the Act, data contained in Green Fresh's responses indicated that Green Mega did not make any sales of subject merchandise during the POR. Specifically, a further examination of the data contained in Green Fresh's questionnaire responses indicates that although Green Mega was set up in March 2002, it did not make any sales of the subject merchandise until February 2003 (which is outside the POR of this administrative review). Therefore, for these preliminary results, we have not used the U.S. sales reported by Green Mega in our analysis. In addition, data contained in Green Fresh's U.S. sales listing indicates that Green Fresh sold the subject merchandise to the two U.S. customers in question prior to the period during which its affiliate Green Mega claims it began its sales operations in the United States ( i.e. , February 2003). Therefore, based on the facts described above, we preliminarily find an insufficient basis to further consider Green Fresh and two of its U.S. customers affiliated parties within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act during this POR. However, we intend to re-examine this affiliation issue in the next administrative review, should a review be requested.

In the final results of the prior administrative review, the Department determined that the application of adverse facts available was warranted for both Gerber and Green Fresh, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. The Department found that during that period of review, Gerber and Green Fresh had entered into an arrangement through which Gerber exported its own subject merchandise to the United States, but reported Green Fresh as the exporter ( see Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 68 FR 41304, 41306 (July 11, 2003) (and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 1) (“ PRC Mushrooms Third Administrative Review ”). For a limited number of transactions, Green Fresh processed some initial paperwork, but for the vast majority of sales, did nothing but sell Gerber its invoices for a commission. The result of this arrangement was that for numerous transactions during that period of review, Gerber made cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties not at its own rate, but at the much lower calculated cash deposit rate assigned to Green Fresh. Thus, Gerber, with Green Fresh's assistance, was able to circumvent the collection of substantial cash deposits during that period of review.

The Department determined in the final results of the last review that neither Gerber, nor Green Fresh, had acted to the best of its ability. The Department explained that both Gerber and Green Fresh continually misrepresented in their questionnaire responses to the Department the specifics of their true relationship during the POR ( see also PRC Mushrooms Third Administrative Review at Comment 1). Thus, it was not until verification of these companies that the Department became fully aware of many of the details recounted above. Id at Comment 1. The Department further explained that it could not rely upon the information which Gerber and Green Fresh supplied to the Department because through their misrepresentations in numerous questionnaire responses, the veracity and credibility of all the companies' responses were called into question by the Department. Id at Comment 1. Finally, the Department explained that, no matter the motivations of the parties to the Gerber/Green Fresh arrangement, Gerber evaded payment of cash deposits which it was required to pay pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and Green Fresh provided the means by which Gerber was able to evade such collection. Thus, pursuant to its discretion to prevent the evasion or circumvention of the antidumping law, the Department determined that the application of total adverse facts available was appropriate for both Gerber and Green Fresh. Id at Comment 1 (citing Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States , 700 F. Supp. 538, 555 (1988), aff'd 898 F. 2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990).)

Gerber continued to use Green Fresh's invoices during the POR covered by this administrative review. See Gerber's Supplemental Questionnaire Response, dated September 3, 2003 at 4-14. Gerber's estimated cash deposit rate, derived from its first administrative review, was 121.33 percent during the POR. ( See Amended Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China , 66 FR 35595, 35596 (July 6, 2001).) On the other hand, Green Fresh's estimated cash deposit rate was 29.87 percent, derived from its own new shipper review. ( See Final Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China , 66 FR 45006 (August 27, 2001).) Thus, Gerber continued to circumvent the collection of substantial cash deposits during this POR. Furthermore, just as in the last review, such circumvention could not have occurred but for Green Fresh's arrangement with Gerber. In addition, Gerber placed a copy of the alleged contractual agreement between itself and Green Fresh during the last administrative review on the record of that review, and the terms of the alleged agreement itself purport to last through May 2002—during the POR covered by this administrative review. This submission, as well as all relevant documentation pertaining to Gerber and Green Fresh's relationship from the previous administrative review record were placed on the record of this proceeding on February 13, 2004. See Memorandum to File Re: Gerber and Green Fresh Documents , February 13, 2004.

The Department has preliminarily determined that the application of total adverse facts available for Gerber is warranted for this administrative review. Gerber did not submit to CBP the appropriate cash deposit rates assigned to it by the Department for numerous transactions during the POR, as directed by the Act. See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. There is an “inherent power of an administrative agency to protect the integrity of its own proceedings.” See Alberta Gas Chemicals Ltd. v. United States , 650 F. 2d 9 (2nd Cir. 1981). As the Department provided in its PRC Mushrooms Third Administrative Review , “the Department has discretion to administer the law in a manner that prevents evasion of the order.” See PRC Mushrooms Third Administrative Review at Comment 1. Indeed, as the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) provided in Tung Mung Development v. United States , 219 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1343 (CIT 2002), aff'd, Tung Mung, et. al., 03-1073, 03-1095 (January 15, 2004), “the ITA has been vested with authority to administer the antidumping laws in accordance with the legislative intent. To this end, the ITA has (a) certain amount of discretion (to act) * * * with the purpose in mind of preventing the intentional evasion or circumvention of the antidumping duty law. Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States , 700 F. Supp. 538, 555 (1988), aff'd 898 F. 2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” Without such authority, the Department, despite being the administrative agency designated with the responsibility of enforcing the antidumping law, would be forced to accept and review sales that were the result of potentially illegal or inappropriate arrangements. See Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 276 F. Supp. 2d. 1296 (CIT 2003)(determining that the ITC correctly applied “best information available,” the precursor to adverse facts available, when the existence of a price fixing scheme came to light following an investigation). Such abuse of the antidumping review process is unacceptable and certainly not a situation Congress anticipated or believed acceptable when it drafted the antidumping statutory provisions. See Queen's Flowers De Colombia v. United States , 981 F. Supp. 617, 621 (CIT 1997) (determining that the Department's decision to define the term “company” to include several closely related companies was a permissible application of the statute, given its “responsibility to prevent circumvention of the antidumping law”); Hontex Enterprises, Inc., et. al. v. United States , 248 F. Supp. 1323, 1343 (CIT 2003) (finding that the Department's decision to increase the scope of its analysis to include NME exporters was reasonable in light of its “responsibility to prevent circumvention of the antidumping law”). This inherent authority to protect the integrity of the antidumping review process and prevent circumvention of the law is essential to the Department in both its practice and its regulations. See, e.g. , 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2003) (the Department's “collapsing” regulation. Pursuant to this regulation, the Department will treat two or more affiliated producers as a single entity if it determines that there is a “significant potential for the manipulation of price or production”). Thus, because Gerber circumvented the antidumping duty law and evaded the collection of the appropriate cash deposits during the POR, the Department, pursuant to this inherent authority, has determined that the application of total facts available is warranted.

Gerber and Green Fresh have indicated on the record that during this POR Gerber used Green Fresh's invoices when exporting some of its merchandise to the United States, although Gerber was providing Green Fresh with apparently no compensation for such usage and Gerber was aware that Green Fresh believed that their business relationship had allegedly ended ( see pages 4-8 of Gerber's September 3, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response). Gerber has also indicated on the record that the reason for its arrangement with Green Fresh was allegedly to report information to the PRC government using Green Fresh's name and not its own ( see pages 6-7 of the Gerber verification report in the PRC Mushrooms Third Administrative Review). In addition, the Department found at verification during the last POR that Gerber mis-characterized its contract disputes with Green Fresh during that POR, disputes that allegedly continued through to the current POR. Id. All of this, taken with the fact that Gerber circumvented the collection of the appropriate cash deposits during the POR, leads the Department to determine that it cannot find Gerber's submissions to the Department to be reliable for purposes of this administrative review. The entire antidumping duty review process is inherently dependent upon a respondent being forthright, honest, and participating to the best of its ability, not just in the current review period, but in previous administrative periods when actions taken during those periods directly affect the outcome of a subsequent review or reviews. Gerber has not acted to the best of its ability and its actions with respect to the Gerber/Green Fresh sales have undermined the credibility of all other information it has provided to the Department. Accordingly, the application of facts available is warranted, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.

In selecting from among facts available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, an adverse inference is warranted when the Department has determined that a respondent has “failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.” The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), in Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, 337 F. 3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003), provided an explanation of this standard, holding that the Department need not show intentional conduct existed on the part of the respondent, but merely that a “failure to cooperate to the best of a respondent's ability” existed, ie., information was not provided “under circumstances in which it is reasonable to conclude that less than full cooperation has been shown.” Id. The CAFC did acknowledge, however, that “deliberate concealment or inaccurate reporting” would certainly be a reason to apply adverse facts available (“AFA”), although it indicated that inadequate responses to Department inquiries “would suffice” as well. Id. Further, adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See “Statement of Administrative Action” accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) (“SAA”) at 870; Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (CIT 1998); and Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (CIT 1999). Such adverse inferences may include reliance on information derived from (1) the petition; (2) a final determination in the investigation under this title; (3) any previous review under section 751 or determination under section 753, or (4) any other information on the record.

In this case, an adverse inference is warranted because (1) Gerber participated in a scheme which resulted in the circumvention of the antidumping duty order and the evasion of the appropriate level of cash deposits, and (2) Gerber has not acted to the best of its ability in its reporting of information to the United States government, both at the time of entry of the merchandise and in previous submissions to the Department relating to the agreement between Gerber and Green Fresh which directly pertained to the transactions now under review in this POR. Accordingly, the Department is assigning Gerber the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 as total adverse facts available. We have also referred the matter to CBP so that the activities engaged in by this company can be properly addressed under U.S. customs law.

With respect to Green Fresh, Green Fresh claims in its questionnaire responses that it did not provide Gerber with any of its sales invoices during the POR and that its business relationship with Gerber was terminated during the period of the prior administrative review ( see pages 6-7 of the Green Fresh verification report issued in the PRC Mushrooms Third Administrative Review). However, whether Green Fresh supplied Gerber with sales invoices before the POR began, or during the POR, is less important than the fact that Gerber used Green Fresh's invoices during the POR. An administrative review POR is an artificial structure, set up for the Department to review particular entries exported to the United States at a particular time period. The underlying motivations of the parties to the transactions have little relevance to our analysis outside of a “best of its ability” determination for adverse facts available purposes under section 776(b) of the Act. The entry documents reflect the transaction information necessary for the Department to conduct its standard analysis. In this case, the entry documents show that Green Fresh's invoices were used by Gerber and resulted in the evasion of payment of cash deposits during the POR. Accordingly, to protect the integrity of our administrative proceedings, the Department has preliminarily determined that the application of facts available, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, is warranted with respect to Green Fresh.

Green Fresh argues that it did not consent to Gerber's use of its invoices during the POR, and Gerber has stated that it believes Green Fresh had no knowledge of its Green Fresh-invoice sales during the POR ( see page 7 of the Green Fresh verification report issued in the PRC Mushrooms Third Administrative Review and pages 4-8 of Gerber's September 3, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response). This fact is further supported by the statement of both parties that Green Fresh received no compensation from Gerber during the POR. Thus, the Department has preliminarily determined that application of total facts available would be inappropriate for Green Fresh, as nothing on the record calls into question Green Fresh's other reported information during this administrative review. Rather, we believe that the use of partial facts available is appropriate, limited only to the Gerber/Green Fresh transactions.

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may apply an adverse inference to facts available when it determines that a respondent has not acted to the best of its ability. Green Fresh has provided no proof on the record that it took measures to prevent Gerber from continuing to use its invoices in this POR: Green Fresh has supplied no documentation, legal or otherwise, to show that, in accordance with its own commercial well-being, it attempted in good faith to stop Gerber from actively circumventing the antidumping duty order and evading the payment of cash deposits during the POR. In addition, Green Fresh has provided the Department with no evidence that the terms of its “Agreement” with Gerber were terminated prior to May 2002 ( i.e. , were not in effect during the POR covered by this administrative review). All Green Fresh has provided on the record is claims which comply with claims made by Green Fresh officials to Department representatives at verification during the last POR. ( See pages 7 of Green Fresh's September 15, 2003, submission; pages 5-7 of the Green Fresh verification report, and pages 6-7 of the Gerber verification report issued in the PRC Mushrooms Third Administrative Review. ) It stands to reason that if a competitor producer/exporter of subject merchandise uses a company's invoices to export to the United States, in direct competition with that company's business, company officials would take several measures to prevent such misuse of its paperwork. Green Fresh has supplied no documentation on the record of taking any measures whatsoever against Gerber to prevent use of its invoices.

Accordingly, because Green Fresh assisted Gerber in the circumvention of the antidumping duty order and because it has provided no documentary evidence on the record that its relationship ended with Gerber in the prior POR, or that it attempted to the best of its ability to prevent the use of its invoices by Gerber during this POR, the Department has determined that Green Fresh did not act to the best of its ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. More specifically, as facts available, we have determined that because certain Gerber transactions identified Green Fresh as the exporter and because those transactions used Green Fresh's invoices, these specific transactions should be attributed to Green Fresh in our calculations. Thus, as partial adverse facts available, the Department has applied the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent to those sales made by Gerber using Green Fresh's invoices.

For the reasons stated below, we have applied total adverse facts available to Shantou Hongda.

Shantou Hongda refused to allow the Department to conduct verification of its submitted information ( see September 24, 2003, memorandum from case analyst to the file). Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act provides that if an interested party provides information that cannot be verified, the use of facts available is warranted. Furthermore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may apply an adverse inference if it finds a respondent has not acted to the best of its ability.

The Department was unable to ascertain the accuracy of Shantou Hongda's submitted data or determine whether Shantou Hongda was entitled to a separate rate because Shantou Hongda refused to allow the Department to conduct verification of its submitted data. Shantou Hongda, accordingly, failed to act to the best of its ability in cooperating with the Department in this segment of the proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we have made an adverse inference with respect to Shantou Hongda. Consequently, Shantou Hongda is not eligible to receive a separate rate and will be part of the PRC NME entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate.

In this segment of the proceeding, in accordance with Department practice (see, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the Seventh New Shipper Review, 68 FR 1031, 1033 (January 8, 2003)), as adverse facts available, we have assigned to exports of the subject merchandise by Shantou Hongda a rate of 198.63 percent, which is the PRC-wide rate. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce a respondent to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” ( See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932, (February 23, 1998).) We believe that the rate assigned is appropriate in this regard.

Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, a figure which it applies as facts available. To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both reliable and relevant. We are applying as AFA the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, which is a rate calculated in the LTFV investigation. ( See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 8308, 8310 (February 19, 1999).) Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only sources for calculated margins are administrative determinations.

The information upon which the AFA rate is based in the current review ( i.e. , the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent) being assigned to both Gerber and Shantou Hongda was calculated during the LTFV investigation. This AFA rate is the same rate which the Department assigned to Gerber in the previous review and the rate itself has not changed since the LTFV. When using a previously calculated margin as facts available, for purposes of corroboration the Department will consider, in the context of the current review, whether that margin is both reliable and relevant. Furthermore, the AFA rate we are applying for the current review was corroborated in reviews subsequent to the LTFV investigation to the extent that the Department referred to the history of corroboration and found that the Department received no information that warranted revisiting the issue. (See e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304, 41307 (July 11, 2003)). No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable.

With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). The information used in calculating this margin was based on sales and production data submitted by the respondents in the LTFV investigation, together with the most appropriate surrogate value information available to the Department, chosen from submissions by the parties in the LTFV investigation, as well as gathered by the Department itself. Furthermore, the calculation of this margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the proceeding. Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as AFA, we determine that this rate has relevance. As the rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the calculated rate of 198.63 percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate, is in accord with the requirement of section 776(c) that secondary information be corroborated ( i.e. , that it have probative value). We have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise by Gerber and Shantou Hongda, and certain sales made with Green Fresh's invoices but which Green Fresh did not report in its questionnaire response.

In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate ( i.e. , a PRC-wide rate). One respondent in these reviews, Primera Harvest, is wholly owned by persons located outside the PRC. Thus, for Primera Harvest, because we have no evidence indicating that it is under the control of the PRC government, a separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control. ( See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth New Shipper Review , 66 FR 44331 (August 23, 2001), which cites to Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fifth New Shipper Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 29080 (May 29, 2001) (where the respondent was wholly owned by a U.S. registered company); Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 27063 (May 16, 2001), which cites Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001) (where the respondent was wholly owned by a company located in Hong Kong); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China , 64 FR 71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly owned by persons located in Hong Kong).)

Three respondents, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, and Shenxian Dongxing, are joint ventures of PRC entities. The other respondent, COFCO, is owned by “all of the people.” Thus, a separate-rates analysis is necessary to determine whether the export activities of each of these four exporters is independent from government control. ( See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China (“Bicycles”) , 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996).) To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent in its export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department utilizes a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“Sparklers”) , and amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“Silicon Carbide”) . Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.

Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over exporter activities includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.

COFCO, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, and Shenxian Dongxing have placed on the administrative record the following documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control: the 1994 “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China;” and the “Company Law of the PRC,” effective as of July 1, 1994. In other cases involving products from the PRC, respondents have submitted the following additional documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, and the Department has placed these additional documents on the record as well: the “Law of the People's Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole People,” adopted on April 13, 1988 (“the Industrial Enterprises Law”); “The Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative Regulations,” promulgated on June 13, 1988; the 1990 “Regulation Governing Rural Collectively-Owned Enterprises of PRC;” and the 1992 “Regulations for Transformation of Operational Mechanisms of State-Owned Industrial Enterprises” (“Business Operation Provisions”). ( See March 1, 2004, memorandum to the file which places the above-referenced laws on the record of this proceeding segment.)

As in prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found them to establish sufficiently an absence of de jure control of joint ventures and companies owned by “all of the people” absent proof on the record to the contrary. ( See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) (“Furfuryl Alcohol”) , and Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995).)

As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. ( See Silicon Carbide , 59 FR at 22587, and Furfuryl Alcohol , 60 FR at 22544.) Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a governmental authority; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. ( See Silicon Carbide , 59 at 22587 and Furfuryl Alcohol , 60 FR at 22545.)

COFCO, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, and Shenxian Dongxing each has asserted the following: (1) Each establishes its own export prices; (2) each negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; (3) each makes its own personnel decisions; and (4) each retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, each respondent's questionnaire responses indicate that its pricing during the POR does not suggest coordination among exporters. Furthermore, with respect to Shenxian Dongxing, we examined documentation at verification which substantiated its claims as noted above ( see pages 3-7 of the Shenxian Dongxing verification report). As a result, there is a sufficient basis to preliminarily determine that each respondent listed above has demonstrated a de facto absence of government control of its export functions and is entitled to a separate rate. Consequently, we have preliminarily determined that each of these respondents has met the criteria for the application of separate rates.

To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by COFCO, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, Primera Harvest, and Shenxian Dongxing to the United States were made at prices below normal value (“NV”), we compared each company's export prices (“EPs”) or constructed export prices (“CEP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price,” “Constructed Export Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below.

For COFCO, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, and Shenxian Dongxing, we used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act for sales in which the subject merchandise was first sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and CEP was not otherwise indicated. We made the following company-specific adjustments:

We calculated EP based on packed, FOB foreign port and/or CNF U.S. port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, and international freight in accordance with section 772(C) of the Act. Because foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate rates from India ( see “Surrogate Country” section below for further discussion of our surrogate-country selection). To value foreign inland trucking charges, we used Indian truck freight rates published in Chemical Weekly and distance information obtained from the following Web sites: http://www.infreight.com , and http://www.sitaindia.com/Packages/CityDistance.php . To value foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we relied on 1999-2000 public information reported in the LTFV investigation on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India ( see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India , 67 FR 50406 (October 3, 2001)). For international freight ( i.e. , ocean freight), we used the reported expenses because Green Fresh reportedly used only a market-economy freight carrier and paid for those expenses in a market-economy currency ( see, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review , 64 FR 9972, 9974 (March 1, 1999)). We also revised the Green Fresh's and Guangxi Yulin's reported per-unit packed weights used to derive PRC movement expenses ( see Green Fresh and Guangxi Yulin calculation memoranda).

We calculated export price based on packed, FOB foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling expenses in accordance with section 772(C) of the Act. Because foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling expenses were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based these charges on surrogate rates from India. ( See discussion above for further details.) We revised COFCO's and Guangxi Yulin's reported per-unit packed weights used to derive PRC movement expenses ( see COFCO and Guangxi Yulin calculation memoranda).

We calculated export price based on packed, CIF foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling expenses in accordance with section 772(C) of the Act. Because foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling expenses were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based these charges on surrogate rates from India. ( See discussion above for further details.) Based on our verification findings, Shenxian Dongxing reported its U.S. prices inclusive of international freight and separately reported an amount for this expense on a transaction-specific basis. Because Shenxian Dongxing was paid in full for this expense by its U.S. customers, we deducted this amount from the starting price. We also revised (1) the gross unit price and quantity data reported for one U.S. sales transaction; (2) the reported distance from the factory to the port of exportation; and (3) the per-unit packed weights used to derive PRC movement expenses. ( See Shenxian Dongxing verification report at 11-13 and 21-22, and Shenxian Dongxing calculation memorandum.)

For Primera Harvest we calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the U.S. sale was made for the account of Primera Harvest by its subsidiary in the United States, Primera Harvest, Inc. (“PHI”), to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States.

We based CEP on a packed, ex-U.S. warehouse price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, international freight ( i.e. , ocean freight), U.S. import duties and fees (including harbor maintenance fees, merchandise processing fees), U.S. inland freight expenses ( i.e. , freight from the U.S. port to the U.S. warehouse), and U.S. warehousing expenses. As all foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling expenses were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued these services using the Indian surrogate values discussed above. However, unlike the other respondents, one of Primera Harvest's freight service providers also used a barge to transport the subject merchandise to the last delivery location prior to exportation. Therefore, to value foreign inland shipping charges, we used a July 1997 Indian domestic ship rate. For international freight, we used the reported expenses because the respondent used a market-economy freight carrier and paid for the expenses in a market-economy currency. Based on our verification findings, we revised the reported distance from the factory to the port in the PRC. ( See Primera Harvest verification report at 30.) We also revised the Primera Harvest's reported per-unit packed weights used to derive PRC movement expenses ( see Primera Harvest calculation memorandum).

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (credit expenses) and indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States. Based on our verification findings, we revised this company's reported credit expenses. ( See also Primera Harvest verification report at 30.) We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. ( See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review , 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003)). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(C) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development. ( See April 23, 2003, Memorandum from the Office of Policy to the Team Leader.) In addition, based on publicly available information placed on the record, India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we selected India as the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate country selection.

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated normal value based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the factors reported by the five respondents, except as noted below. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian values.

Based on our verification findings, both Primera Harvest and Shenxian Dongxing failed to provide supporting documentation at verification for certain material factors reported in each company's questionnaire responses. Thus, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Department was forced to use facts otherwise available to value these factors of production.

Specifically, Primera Harvest did not report the electricity amount used in the fresh mushroom growing stage of production even though it claimed otherwise prior to verification. This information is necessary for determining the normal value of its reported U.S. sale. Therefore, absent verifiable data for this energy input, the Department, as facts available, calculated an average electricity amount for the fresh mushroom growing stage based on the verified electricity amounts contained in its response for its other stages of production ( e.g. , brining and canning).

As for Shenxian Dongxing, this respondent was unable to support at verification its reported water usage figures for four-ounce can sizes. This information is necessary for determining the normal value of Shenxian Dongxing's reported U.S. sales. For the only other can size for which Shenxian Dongxing reported water factors ( i.e. , 68-ounce can size), the Department was able to verify that data. Therefore, as facts available, the Department used the verified per-unit water factors for Shenxian Dongxing's 68-ounce can sizes of preserved mushrooms for purposes of valuing the costs associated with water used for its 4-ounce can sizes.

Based on our verification findings at Primera Harvest, we also revised the following data in Primera Harvest's response: (1) The reported per-unit consumption factors for citric acid, cottonseed meal, fertilizer, label, tape, carton, electricity used for brining, electricity used for canning, and the water used for growing, brining, and canning; and (2) the distances from Primera Harvest to its spawn and can suppliers. ( See Primera Harvest verification report at 39 through 46, and Primera Harvest calculation memorandum.)

Based on our verification findings at Shenxian Dongxing, we also revised the following data in Shenxian Dongxing's response: (1) The reported per-unit consumption amounts for tin plate, tin plate scrap, labor and electricity for can-making, water and labor for mushroom-growing, label, carton, and glue used for preserved mushrooms contained in 68-ounce can sizes; (2) the reported per-unit consumption amounts for potassium super, calcium carbonate, and cartons used for preserved mushrooms contained in 4-ounce cans; and (3) the distances reported from certain material suppliers. We also disallowed an offset for copper scrap reported by this company because we verified that it simply returned the used copper wire to its vendor for reprocessing rather than sold the copper wire scrap ( See Shenxian Dongxing verification report at 19-21, and March 1, 2004, Shenxian Dongxing calculation memorandum.)

With respect to the factors data submitted by COFCO's affiliated producer, Fujian Zishan, we made numerous adjustments to its submitted data which were necessary for purposes of collapsing identical products which both it and another COFCO affiliated producer, Yu Xing, produced during the POR ( see COFCO calculation memorandum for further discussion).

The Department's selection of the surrogate values applied in this determination was based on the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices. For those values not contemporaneous with the POR and quoted in a foreign currency or in U.S. dollars, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices (“WPIs”) published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics .

To value fresh mushrooms and rice straw, we used an average price based on data contained in the 2001-2002 financial report of Premier Explosives Ltd. (“Premier”).

To value cow manure and general and/or wheat straw, we used an average price based on data contained in the 2001-2002 financial report of Flex Foods Ltd. (“Flex Foods”) and the 2002-2003 financial report of Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. (“Agro Dutch”) ( i.e. , two Indian producers of the subject merchandise).

To value chicken manure and spawn, we used an average price based on data contained in the 2001-2002 financial reports of Flex Foods and Premier and the 2002-2003 financial report of Agro Dutch. For those respondents which used mother spawn, we also used the average spawn price to value mother spawn because we were unable to obtain publicly available information which contained a price for mother spawn.

To value soil, we used July 2003 price data from two U.S. periodicals: Mt. Scott Fuel and Interval Compost because we could not obtain an Indian surrogate value for this input.

To value wheat and super phosphate, we used price data contained in Flex Foods' 2001-2002 financial report because no such data was available from the other financial reports on the record.

For those respondents which only purchased tin cans used in the production of preserved mushrooms during the POR, we valued tin cans using the can-purchase-specific price data from the May 21, 2001, public version response submitted by Agro Dutch in the 2nd antidumping duty administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India, and derived per-unit, can-size-specific prices using the petitioner's methodology contained in its August 15, 2003, PAI submission.

To value fertilizer, salt, lime, cotton, tin plate scrap, copper conducting wire, and copper wire scrap, can and lid scrap, lacquer, nitrogen, steam coal, sodium hydrosulphite, sodium metabisulphite, and vitamin C, we used February 2002-January 2003 average Indian import values downloaded from the World Trade Atlas Trade Information System (Internet Version 4.3e) (“ World Trade Atlas ”). We also added an amount for loading and additional transportation charges associated with delivering coal to the factory based on June 1999 Indian price data contained in the periodical Business Line .

For those respondents which used cotton seed meal, we also used the average cotton price to value cotton seed meal because we were unable to obtain publicly available information which contained a price for cotton seed meal.

To value rye, we used a February 2002-January 2003 average import value for cereal grain from the World Trade Atlas because we were unable to obtain a more specific value for this input.

For rice husks, we used a January-March 2000 average import value from the World Trade Atlas because we were unable to obtain price data more contemporaneous with the POR.

For disodium stannous citrate, we used a February 2002-January 2003 average import value for sodium citrate from the World Trade Atlas because we were unable to obtain a more specific value for this input.

To value tin plate, we used an average price based on February 2002-January 2003 data contained in World Trade Atlas and data contained in Agro Dutch's 2002-2003 financial report.

To value citric acid, calcium carbonate, and urea ( i.e. , carbamide), we used an average import price based on February 2002-January 2003 data contained in the World Trade Atlas and February 2002-January 2003 Indian domestic price data contained in Chemical Weekly , consistent with our past practice ( see Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Third New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 67 FR 46173 (July 12, 2002) and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 7)). For those prices obtained from Chemical Weekly , where appropriate, we also deducted an amount for excise taxes based on the methodology applied to values from the same source in a prior review involving the subject merchandise from the PRC. ( See page 4 of the May 31, 2001, Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China , 66 FR 30695 (June 7, 2001) (“Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum”) which has been placed on the record of this proceeding.)

To value calcium phosphate, we used a December 1999 U.S. value from Chemical Market Reporter because we could not obtain an Indian surrogate value for this input. Although the value from Chemical Market Reporter was in U.S. dollars, it was not contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, we inflated this value to the POR using WPIs.

To value gypsum, we used an average price based on February 2002-January 2003 data contained in World Trade Atlas and data contained in Flex Foods' 2001-2002 financial report.

To value potassium super, we used an average price based on February 2002-January 2003 Indian price data contained in Chemical Weekly .

To value water, we used 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 Indian price data from the Second Water Utilities Data Book . Since this value was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted this value for inflation based on wholesale price indices published in the International Monetary Fund's IFS .

To value electricity, we used 2001 Indian price data from the International Energy Agency's (“IEA”) report, “Electricity Prices for Industry,” contained in the 2002 Key World Energy Statistics from the IEA .

To value diesel oil, we used data contained in the 1999-2000 financial report of Hindustan Lever Ltd.

We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To value factory overhead and selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, we used the 2002-2003 financial data of Agro Dutch and the 2001-2002 financial data of Flex Foods, both Indian producers of the subject merchandise. To value profit, we only used the 2001-2002 financial data of Flex Foods because Agro Dutch experienced a loss during the above-mentioned period. Therefore, in accordance with the Department's practice, we have excluded the financial data of Agro Dutch from the surrogate profit calculation. ( See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China , 68 FR 10685 (March 6, 2003) and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 1)).

We did not use the following two other Indian sources of data to value factory overhead, SG&A or profit: the 2001-2002 fiscal data obtained for Premier and the 2002-2003 fiscal data obtained for Himalya International Ltd. (“Himalya”), because although each company produces the subject merchandise, the subject merchandise is but one of several products produced. Moreover, in accordance with the Department's practice in the prior administrative review, we also do not find it appropriate to use Himalya's financial data because, unlike Himalya, none of the PRC respondents (including Green Fresh and Primera Harvest) have operations overseas which sell non-subject merchandise and which would necessitate incurring additional costs not associated with the sale of mushrooms ( see also Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003) and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 4).

Where appropriate, we did not include in the surrogate overhead and SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed in the financial reports. We made certain adjustments to the ratios calculated as a result of reclassifying certain expenses contained in the financial reports. For a further discussion of the adjustments made, see the Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum .

To value PRC inland freight for inputs shipped by truck, we used Indian freight rates published in the February 2002-June 2002 issues of Chemical Weekly and obtained distances between cities from the following Web sites: http://www.infreight.com and http://www.sitaindia.com/Packages/CityDistance.php .

To value PRC inland freight for inputs shipped by train ( e.g. , mother spawn), we used price quotes published in the July 2001 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin .

To value corrugated cartons, labels, tape, and glue we used February 2002-January 2003 average import values from the World Trade Atlas .

In accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States , 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997), we revised our methodology for calculating source-to-factory surrogate freight for those material inputs that are valued based, all or in part, on CIF import values in the surrogate country. Therefore, we have added to CIF surrogate values from India a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distances from either the closest PRC port of importation to the factory, or from the domestic supplier to the factory on an input-specific basis.

We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the following exporters under review during the period February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003:

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. If requested, a hearing will be held on June 8, 2004.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than May 28, 2004, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due not later than June 4, 2004, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final results of these administrative and new shipper reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer- or customer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. For certain respondents for which we calculated a margin, we do not have the actual entered value because they are not the importers of record for the subject merchandise. For these respondents, we intend to calculate individual customer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis ( i.e. , less than 0.50 percent), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate customer-specific ad valorem ratios based on export prices.

We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer or customer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis .

For entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from companies not subject to these reviews, we will instruct CBP to liquidate them at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

Upon completion of these reviews, for entries from COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, Primera Harvest, and Shenxian Dongxing, we will require cash deposits at the rate established in the final results as further described below.

Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments of brake rotors from the PRC produced and exported by Primera Harvest that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of the new shipper review. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the new shipper review for all shipments of subject merchandise from Primera Harvest entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date: (1) For subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Primera Harvest, a cash deposit will be required if the cash deposit rate calculated in the final results is not zero or de minimis ; and (2) for subject merchandise exported by Primera Harvest but not manufactured by Primera Harvest, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC countrywide rate ( i.e. , 198.63 percent).

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the administrative review for all shipments of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, and Shenxian Dongxing will be the rates determined in the final results of review (except that if a rate is de minimis , i.e. , less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding (which were not reviewed in this segment of the proceeding) will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding ( i.e. , Raoping Xingyu); (3) the cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity (including Shantou Hongda, Shenzhen Qunxingyuan, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang) will continue to be 198.63 percent; and (4) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter.

These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

These administrative and new shipper reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(I)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b).

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they existed on December 31, 1994.

On February 11, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register its final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 62 FR 6189 (February 11, 1997). As a result of litigation, the Court of International Trade (CIT) remanded the results of the review to the Department on October 25, 2001. See Peer Bearing Company v. United States , 182 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (CIT 2001). The Department completed its final results of redetermination on remand on March 12, 2002, and submitted the results to the CIT; the CIT affirmed the Department's final remand results and dismissed the case. See Peer Bearing Company v. United States , No. 97-03-00419, slip op. 02-53 (CIT 2002). In another decision, Transcom, Inc. v. United States , 294 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the Department's original determination in this administrative review. As there was a final and conclusive court decision in this action, on December 31, 2002, we published in the Federal Register a notice of amended final results of administrative review. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 67 FR 79902 (December 31, 2002) ( Amended Final Results ). In the Amended Final Results , we inadvertently omitted the revised PRC countrywide rate of 60.95 percent from the list of the revised weighted-average margins that was included in the final results of redetermination completed on March 12, 2002, and affirmed on June 5, 2002, by the CIT.

Pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we are now amending the PRC countrywide rate from the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC for the period of review June 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994. The revised PRC countrywide rate is 60.95 percent.

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these amended final results of review.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, upon publication of these amended final results, for all PRC exporters which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC countrywide rate of 60.95 percent for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date.

We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires NMFS and the Council to describe and identify EFH in fishery management plans (FMPs), minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH. Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or undertake actions that may adversely affect EFH must consult with NMFS, and NMFS must provide conservation recommendations to Federal and state agencies regarding actions that would adversely affect EFH. The Council also has authority to comment on Federal or state agency actions that would adversely affect the habitat, including EFH, of managed species.

The Council amended its FMPs for the groundfish, crab, scallop, and salmon fisheries in 1998 to address the EFH requirements. The Secretary of Commerce, acting through NMFS, approved the Council's EFH FMP amendments in January 1999 (64 FR 20216; April 26, 1999). In the spring of 1999, a coalition of seven environmental groups and two fishermen's associations filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge NMFS' approval of EFH FMP amendments prepared by the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, New England, North Pacific, and Pacific Fishery Management Councils. The focus of the litigation was whether NMFS and the Council had adequately evaluated the effects of fishing on EFH and taken appropriate measures to mitigate adverse effects. In September 2000, the court upheld NMFS' approval of the EFH amendments under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but ruled that the environmental assessment (EA) prepared for the amendments violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court ordered NMFS to complete new and thorough NEPA analyses for each EFH amendment in question. The DEIS for EFH Identification and Conservation in Alaska is the curative NEPA analysis for the North Pacific Council's FMPs. A notice of availability for the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2004 (69 FR 2593) and is available on the internet at www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/seis/efheis.htm . NMFS is accepting public comments through April 15, 2004.

Most of the controversy surrounding the necessary level of protection needed for EFH concerns the effects of fishing activities on sea floor habitats. Substantial differences of opinion exist as to the extent and significance of habitat alteration caused by bottom trawling and other fishing activities. The DEIS reexamines the effects of fishing on EFH, presents a wider range of alternatives, and provides a more thorough analysis of potential impacts than the EA approved in 1999. Because the court did not limit its criticism of the 1999 analysis solely to the section that considered the effects of fishing on EFH, the DEIS also reexamines options for identifying EFH and HAPCs.

The actions the Council and NMFS take in association with the DEIS may result in new FMP amendments to modify the existing EFH and/or HAPC designations and/or to implement additional measures to reduce the effects of fishing on EFH.

NMFS and the Council will hold public meetings as follows:

1. Friday, March 19, 2004, 9 a.m. - 12 p.m. Alaska local time (ALT) - NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Jim Traynor Conference Room, Building 4, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA.

2. Wednesday, March 31, 2004, 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. ALT - Anchorage Hilton, Katmai/Dillingham Room, 500 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, AK.

3. Thursday, April 8, 2004, 1 p.m. - 4 p.m. ALT - NMFS Alaska Regional Office, 709 West 9 th Street, Room 445, Juneau, AK.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations should be directed to Mary B. Goode (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) at least five working days before the meeting date.

On December 18, 2003, notice was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 70493) that a request for a commercial/educational photography permit to take by harassment, Northern fur seals had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).

On December 12, 2003, CITA directed the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, to establish 2004 import limits for certain wool and man-made fiber textile products produced or manufactured in Belarus (See 68 FR 70494, published on December 18, 2003). That directive included a limit on Category 622, with a sublimit on 622-L. The Bilateral Textile Memorandum of Understanding dated January 10, 2003 between the Governments of the United States and Belarus also calls for an additional sublimit, on Category 622-N. As, the United States and Belarus have not been able to reach agreement on the terms of this additional sublimit, the United States is implementing a sublimit on Category 622-N pending agreement with the Government of Belarus on its terms. This sublimit may be revised if the Governments of the United States and Belarus reach agreement on the terms of the sublimit or if Belarus becomes a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United States applies the WTO agreement to Belarus.

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to establish the limit for Category 622-N.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 68 FR 1599, published on January 13, 2003).

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing, special shift, carryover, carryforward used, and recrediting unused carryforward.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 69 FR 4926, published on February 2, 2004). Also see 68 FR 59923, published on October 20, 2003.

The commercial availability provisions of the AGOA and the CBTPA provide for duty-free and quota-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States if it has been determined that such yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and certain procedural requirements have been met. In Presidential Proclamations 7350 and 7351 of October 4, 2000, the President proclaimed that this treatment would apply to such apparel articles from fabrics or yarns designated by the appropriate U.S. government authority in the Federal Register . In Sections 1 and 6 of Executive Order No. 13191 of January 17, 2001, the Committee was authorized to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the AGOA or the CBTPA.

On November 3, 2003, the Committee received a request alleging that micro-denier 30 singles and 36 singles solution dyed, open-end spun, staple spun viscose yarn, described above, for use in manufacturing fabrics, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the AGOA and the CBTPA. It requested that apparel articles from U.S. formed fabrics containing such yarns be eligible for preferential treatment under the AGOA and the CBTPA. On November 12, 2003, the Committee requested public comment on the petition (68 FR 68086). On November 28, 2003, the Committee and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) sought the advice of the Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Wholesaling and Retailing and the Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Textiles and Apparel. On November 28, 2003, the Committee and USTR offered to hold consultations with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate (collectively, the Congressional Committees). On December 15, 2003, the U.S. International Trade Commission provided advice on the petition. Based on the information and advice received and its understanding of the industry, the Committee determined that the yarn set forth in the request cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On January 2, 2004, the Committee and USTR submitted a report to the Congressional Committees that set forth the action proposed, the reasons for such action, and advice obtained. A period of 60 calendar days since this report was submitted has expired, as required by the AGOA and the CBTPA.

The FAR clause at 52.241-7 requires the utility to furnish the Government with a complete set of rates, terms and conditions, and any subsequently approved or proposed revisions when proposed.

Respondents: 1,028.

Responses Per Respondent: 5.

Total Responses: 5,140.

Hours Per Response: .25 minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 1,285.

Recordkeepers: 1,000.

Hours Per Recordkeeper: 1.

Total Recordkeeping Burden Hours: 1,000.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0123, Change in Rates or Terms and Conditions of Service for Regulated Services, in all correspondence.

The FAR clause 52.241-13, Capital Credits, is designed to obtain an accounting of Capital Credits due the Government when the Government is a member of a cooperative.

Respondents: 450.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: 450.

Hours Per Response: 2.

Total Burden Hours: 900.

Recordkeepers: 450.

Hours Per Recordkeeper: 1.

Total Recordkeeping Burden Hours: 450.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0124, Capital Credits, in all correspondence.

The FAR requires that contracts comply with the applicable Federal laws and the relevant parts of the FAR. The written and definite refusal by a utility supplier to execute a tendered contract (41.202(c)) is intended to identify those suppliers who refuse to do so and the rationale of the supplier for refusing.

Respondents: 50.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Annual Responses: 50.

Hours Per Response: .50.

Total Burden Hours: 25.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0125, Written Refusal of a Utility Supplier to Execute a Utility Contract, in all correspondence.

The representation at 52.241-1, Electric Service Territory Compliance Representation, is required when proposed alternatives of electric utility suppliers are being solicited. The representation and legal and factual rationale, if requested by the contracting officer, is necessary to ensure Government compliance with Pub. L. 100-202.

Respondents: 200.

Responses Per respondent: 2.5.

Total annual responses: 500.

Hours Per Response: .45.

Total Burden Hours: 225.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0126, Electric Service Territory Compliance Representation, in all correspondence.

The Missouri River extends 2,619 miles from its source at Hell Roaring Creek to its confluence with the Mississippi River near St. Louis, Missouri. The Missouri River is the longest river in the United States, draining one sixth of the country. The Mainstem Reservoir System consists of six dams and reservoirs located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. The Mainstem Reservoir System has the capacity to store 73.4 million acre-feet of water, which makes it the largest system of reservoirs in North America. Water flowing down the Missouri River is stored in the six lakes and released as needed for project purposes. The planes of conflict surrounding the revision of the Master Manual are numerous, complex, and contentious. While the basin has made historic progress during the last decade, significant controversy still remains. In the course of the Master Manual Review and Update, much controversy has centered on inclusion of more stringent drought conservation measures in a revised Water Control Plan and on changes in spring and summer releases from Gavins Point Dam for three species provided protection under the Endangered Species Act.

There are 30 Federally recognized American Indian Tribes in the Missouri River basin. Thirteen reservations are located on the mainstem of the Missouri River. The Tribes are dependent sovereign nations and the Corps has a Trust responsibility to the Tribes. The FEIS, which includes a Tribal Appendix, identifies impacts to Tribes resulting from changes in the operation of the Mainstem Reservoir System. Consultation with basin Tribes on the Master Manual Review and Update will continue throughout the NEPA process as the Corps meets its Tribal responsibilities.

Following the review period ( see DATES ), the Corps will prepare a Record of Decision, revise the Master Manual, and develop and implement an Annual Operating Plan in conformance with the revised manual.

Additional information can be found on the Corps' Northwestern Division Web page at http://www.nwd.usace.army.mil.

The Department of the Navy's record system notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, were submitted on March 1, 2004, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996, (61 FR 6427, February 20, 1996).

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. , new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Applications for Grants under the Community Technology Centers Program.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 700. Burden Hours: 39,600.

Abstract: The Grant Application Package includes information for grants applicants, including priorities, selection criteria and requirements, along with relevant ED forms and non-regulatory guidance for the CTC.

This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2472. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian.reese@ed.gov . Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Shelia Carey at her e-mail address Shelia Carey@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: Performance Report—Training Personnel for the Education of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions (primary).

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 450.

 Burden Hours: 1,800.

Abstract: This package contains instructions and the form necessary for grantees and contractors supported under Training Personnel for the Education of Individuals, CFDA No. 84.325. Data are obtained from grantees and are used to assess and monitor the implementation of IDEA and for Congressional reporting.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2473. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian_reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Shelia Carey at her e-mail address Shelia Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance is established under section 491 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended by Public Law 100-50 (20 U.S.C. 1098). The Advisory Committee serves as an independent source of advice and counsel to the Congress and the Secretary of Education on student financial aid policy. Since its inception, the congressional mandate requires the Advisory Committee to conduct objective, nonpartisan, and independent analyses on important aspects of the student assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. In addition, Congress expanded the Advisory Committee's agenda in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 in several important areas: access, Title IV modernization, distance education, and early information and needs assessment. Specifically, the Advisory Committee is to review, monitor and evaluate the Department of Education's progress in these areas and report recommended improvements to Congress and the Secretary.

The FY 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2673), which was signed into law on January 23, 2004, directs the Advisory Committee to examine the Federal financial aid formula and application forms in order to simplify and streamline the programs to make the system easier, more responsive, and fairer for students and families. The Advisory Committee is well suited to conduct this study, drawing upon the expertise of its 11 members and its experience conducting other broad studies on financial aid issues. The Advisory Committee also has the particular mission of examining the impact of these issues on low- and moderate-income students, a specific goal of the study.

The Advisory Committee has scheduled this regional field hearing to gather additional feedback about financial aid simplification. The proposed agenda includes expert testimony and discussion of the following issues: (a) The impact of complexities in the financial aid process on access to postsecondary education, particularly for low-income students; (b) opportunities for simplification in the financial aid process and forms; and (c) specific issues related to financial aid simplification, such as early notification of financial aid eligibility. The agenda also includes an afternoon session during which the general public is invited to provide oral and/or written testimony to the Advisory Committee on these issues. The Advisory Committee also invites the public to submit written comments regarding this study to the following e-mail address: ADV_COMSFA@ed.gov. We must receive your comments on or before April 23, 2004.

Space for the hearing is limited and you are encouraged to register early if you plan to attend the hearing. You may register through the Internet by emailing the Advisory Committee at ADV_COMSFA@ed.gov or at Tracy.Deanna.Jones@ed.gov. Please include your name, title, affiliation, complete address (including Internet and e-mail—if available), and telephone and fax numbers. If you are unable to register electronically, you may mail or fax your registration information to the Advisory Committee staff office at (202) 219-3032. Also, you may contact the Advisory Committee staff at (202) 219-2099. The registration deadline is Monday, March 22, 2004.

Records are kept of all committee proceedings, and are available for public inspection at the Office of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Capitol Place, 80 F Street, NW., Suite 413, Washington, DC from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Information regarding the simplification study will also be made available on the Advisory Committee's Web site, www.ed.gov/ACSFA.

To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final recommendations to Congress and the Secretary of Education, we urge you to identify clearly the specific study questions and goals that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as indicated in the study announcement.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the simplification study at Capitol Place, 80 F Street, NW., Suite 413, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., eastern time, Monday through Friday (excluding Federal holidays). You may also view comments on the Advisory Committee simplification study at http://www.ed.gov/ACSFA.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

If needed, time will be allotted after public comments for items added to the agenda, and administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting Monday, March 22, 2004.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make the oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided equal time to present their comments.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Gerri Flemming, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, PO Box A, Aiken, SC 29802, or by calling her at (803) 952-7886.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of future use, cleanup levels, waste disposition and cleanup priorities at the INEEL.

The tentative objectives for the meeting include:

• Proposed modifications to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit for storage and disposal of mixed waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

• Authorized funding under the current contract for the Environmental Management program at the INEEL.

• Modified Fiscal Year 2004/2005 Performance Based Incentives.

Public Participation: This meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board facilitator either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact the Board Chair at the address or telephone number listed above. Request must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Richard Provencher, Assistant Manager for Environmental Management, Idaho Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Every individual wishing to make public comment will be provided equal time to present their comments.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Ms. Peggy Hinman, INEEL CAB Administrator, at the address and phone number listed above.

On December 19, 2003, in a decision announced by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Libya, the Libyan government agreed to disclose all its weapons of mass destruction and related programs and to open the country to international weapons inspectors to oversee their elimination. In order to assist Libya in the reduction of its proliferation-sensitive materials, the United States, United Kingdom and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sent a team of policy and technical experts to Libya. On January 27, 2004, this team, with the full cooperation of the Libyan government, successfully extracted 55,000 pounds of nuclear material and other sensitive equipment from Libya. This shipment included four cylinders of uranium hexafluoride (UF 6 ) that required a National Security Exemption under DOE Order 461.1, Packaging and Transfer of Materials of National Security Interest, because the containers were not certified under 49 CFR 173.7(b). The equipment and materials were airlifted out of Libya and brought to the McGhee Tyson Airport in Knoxville, TN. The nuclear cargo then was transported to the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, TN for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection and to prepare cylinders for transport to their final destination.

This material was moved as part of a Presidential directed mission. There was insufficient time between the President's directive and the expected movement of the material to conduct an environmental review; hence, the need for alternative arrangements with regard to NEPA compliance. The NNSA Administrator was provided with a classified environmental review contained in an Appendix to a draft Environmental Impact Statement which bounded the accident scenarios. Following review, the NNSA Administrator invoked the national security provisions of 49 CFR 173.7(b) and exempted this transport from DOE Order 461.1, thereby allowing shipment of these items by air to the McGhee Tyson Airport and from there to their destination by land transport.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency were briefed in advance of the mission. CEQ found the NNSA's request for alternative arrangements was appropriately limited to the actions necessary to address the immediate impacts and risks associated with this emergency. Based on the briefing that DOE personnel provided, and their commitment to outreach to EPA and appropriate First Responders, CEQ concluded that the NNSA's assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed action, including incorporation of an existing classified analysis of a similar scenario, provided sufficient alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance. The CEQ also was briefed following the completion of the mission.

The expedited removal of these materials from Libya was consistent with national security goals related to the consolidation, storage, and disposition of potential weapons-usable materials and supports the nonproliferation policies of the United States. Granting this national security exemption supported the expedited removal of the material consistent with the nonproliferation goals of the Department of Energy and the President of the United States.

The Y-12 Site Office ensured that the following conditions were met: First responders at McGhee Tyson Airport were notified of the timing and nature of the shipment. The shipment was escorted by personnel specifically designated by or under the authority of the Department of Energy.

The materials arrived at Y-12 without incident and accordingly without any environmental consequences and will be stored there pending IAEA inspection and shipment to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, OH.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

•  Crop protection (NAICS 111)

•  Animal production (NAICS 112)

•  Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

•  Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2004-0004. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also, include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0004. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0004. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0004.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by Endosulfan Task Force and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received pesticide petition (PP 3E6757) from the Endosulfan Task Force, c/o Dr. Bert Volger, Ceres International LLC, 1087 Heartsease Drive, West Chester, PA 19382 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180, by establishing a tolerance for the total residues of endosulfan (6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-6,9-methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3-oxide expressed as the sum of α- and β-endosulfan), and its metabolite, endosulfan-sulfate (6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-6,9-methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3-dioxide) in or on the raw agricultural commodity, imported green coffee beans, at 0.2 parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA. However, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

1. Plant metabolism . The metabolism of endosulfan in plants and animals is adequately understood for the purpose of the proposed tolerance. Acceptable metabolism studies depicting the qualitative nature of the residues in apple, cucumber, and lettuce have demonstrated that the residues of concern are α- and β-endosulfan, and endosulfan sulfate.

2. Analytical method . Adequate analytical methodology using gas liquid chromatography/electron capture (GLC/EC) detection is available for enforcement purposes. The Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol.II lists Methods I, II and III for determination of endosulfan and/or its sulfate metabolite. The limit of detection was validated for each endosulfan isomer and its sulfate metabolite at 0.01 ppm for green coffee beans and its processed fractions, roasted beans and instant coffee.

3. Magnitude of residues . A total of 10 field trials were conducted in the major coffee producing countries of Brazil (3), Colombia (3), Guatemala (2), and Mexico (2) to evaluate the quantity of endosulfan residues in or on dried green coffee beans following application of 700 grams endosulfan per hectare, 3 times during growing season with the last application 30 days before harvest. The highest total endosulfan residues were measured in one dried green bean sample at 0.11 ppm. In addition, there were two trials conducted at a single 3X exaggerated rate (2,100 g/ha) for processing purposes. There were no detectable residues < 0.01 ppm of α-endosulfan, β-endosulfan and endosulfan sulfate in ground roasted beans or instant coffee. Therefore, the data support the requested tolerance.

1. Acute toxicity . Endosulfan is highly toxic following acute oral exposure and moderately toxic following acute inhalation exposure. In rats, oral median lethal doses (LD 50 values) are 82 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) (males) and 30 mg/kg (females). Medium lethal concentrations (LC 50 values) in rats following acute inhalation exposure range from 0.16 to 0.5 milligram liter (mg/L). Endosulfan is considerably less lethal, however, following acute dermal exposure (LD 50 is 2 grams/kilogram (g/kg). Endosulfan is an eye irritant in rabbits (Toxicity Category I) but is not a dermal irritant or sensitizer.

2. Genotoxicty . Endosulfan does not show any mutagenic potential. The submitted mutagenicity studies have satisfied the data requirements for mutagenicity testing, and there is no concern for a mutagenic effect in somatic cells. In the in vitro or in vivo mutagenicity studies, both the mouse lymphoma forward mutation assay and the unscheduled DNA synthesis assay were negative.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity . A developmental toxicity study in rats indicated a maternal no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 2.0 mg/kg body weight/day (bwt/day) based on increased mortality, tonoclonic convulsions, increased salivation and decreased body weight gains and food consumption at 6.0 mg/kg bwt/day. The developmental NOAEL was 2.0 mg/kg bwt/day, based on a slight increase in skeletal variations and occurrence of fetuses/litter weighing less than 3 grams at the maternally toxic dose of 6.0 mg/kg bwt/day. An oral developmental toxicity study in rabbits showed a maternal NOAEL of 0.7 mg/kg bwt/day and a maternal lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 1.8 mg/kg bwt/day, based on decreased body weight, increased mortality, convulsions, rapid breathing, salivation and hyperactivity during the dosing period. A fetal NOAEL of greater than 1.8 mg/kg bwt/day was also observed in this study. A two-generation reproduction study in rats indicated parental and offspring NOAELs of 1.2 mg/kg bwt/day, based on reductions in body weight in adults and increased pituitary weights in the female pups of the F0 generation and increased uterine weights in the F1b generation at 6.2 mg/kg bwt/day.

4. Subchronic toxicity. In a 13-week feeding study in rats, endosulfan demonstrated a NOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg bwt/day, based on kidney abnormalities and increased spleen weights in male rats at 1.5 mg/kg bwt/day. In a 13-week feeding study in mice the resulting NOAEL was 2.1 mg/kg bwt/day, based on increased mortality in males and females seen at 7.3 mg/kg bwt/day. A 6-month toxicity feeding study in dogs established a NOAEL of 5 mg/kg bwt/day. The LOAEL was 15 mg/kg bwt/day based on clinical signs of neurotoxicity and gastrointestinal disturbances.

Two subchronic dermal studies were conducted with endosulfan. In the first study endosulfan was applied dermally 5 days a week over 30 days. The resulting NOAELs were established at 12 mg/kg/day in females and 96 mg/kg/day in males. The LOAELs were determined to be 48 mg/kg/day in females and 192 mg/kg/day in males based on increased mortality in males and females and increased serum cholinesterase inhibitor (ChE) activity inhibition in males. In the second study endosulfan was administered dermally 5 days a week over 30 days. The LOAELs were determined to be 81 mg/kg/day in males and 27 mg/kg/day in females based on increased mortality. The NOAELs were established at 27 mg/kg/day in males and 9 mg/kg/day in females. The dose and endpoint selected for risk assessment was dermal NOAEL = 12 mg/kg/day based on mortality in female rats at 27 mg/kg/day LOAEL. The endpoints from both 21-day dermal toxicity studies discussed above were considered in arriving at the NOAEL and LOAEL. In a subchronic inhalation study conducted with endosulfan, rats were exposed 6 hours per day, 5 days per week for a total of 21 exposures over 29 days. The NOAEL was 0.001 mg/L (0.2 mg/kg bwt/day), based on decreased body weight gain and leukocyte counts in the males and increased creatinine values in the females at 0.002 mg/L (0.4 mg/kg bwt/day).

5. Neurotoxicity. In an acute neurotoxicity study with endosulfan the resulting NOAEL was 12.5 mg/kg for males and 1.5 mg/kg for females. The LOAEL was 25 mg/kg for males based on increased incidences of stilted gait, squatting posture, and irregular respiration, as well as decreased spontaneous activity. The LOAEL was 3 mg/kg for females, based on an increased incidence of stilted gait, squatting posture, straddled hindlimbs, irregular respirations, panting and bristled coat and decreased spontaneous activity.

6. Chronic toxicity . A 12-month chronic feeding study in dogs established a NOAEL of 0.65 and 0.57 mg/kg bwt/day in males and females, respectively. The LOAEL for this study was established at 1.75 mg/kg bwt/day, based on decreased body weight gain in males and increased incidences of neurological findings in males and females. A 24-month chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats demonstrated a NOAEL of 0.6 mg/kg bwt/day and an average LOAEL of 3.4 mg/kg bwt/day, based on decreased body weight gains and increased incidences of marked progressive glomerulonephrosis in males and females, enlarged kidneys in females and blood vessel aneurysms in males. A 24-month carcinogenicity study in mice was conducted. The NOAEL was 0.9 mg/kg/bwt/day, based on increased incidences of mortality in females at 2.65 mg/kg. Under the conditions of these studies, there was no evidence of carcinogenic potential.

7. Animal metabolism . Following absorption from the oral or dermal exposure routes endosulfan is partially metabolized, primarily to endosulfan sulfate. Minor metabolites include endosulfan diol, endosulfan ether, endosulfan α-hydroxy ether, and endosulfan lactone. None of the minor metabolites of endosulfan are believed to be of toxicological concern. Endosulfan and its metabolites partition and accumulate predominately in the kidney and liver. Following dietary exposure to endosulfan, a large amount of endosulfan sulfate is recovered in the liver, small intestine and visceral fat, and only a trace amount is recovered in muscle tissue. Endosulfan and its metabolites are excreted in both the urine and feces, the latter being the predominant route of excretion. Most of an absorbed dose of endosulfan is excreted within a few days to a few weeks, depending upon dose and route of exposure.

8. Metabolite toxicology . The major metabolite of concern for endosulfan is endosulfan sulfate. This metabolite is assumed to have equal toxicity to the parent.

9. Endocrine disruption . There is no evidence of endocrine effects in any of the studies conducted with endosulfan, thus, there is no indication at this time that endosulfan causes endocrine effects.

1. Dietary exposure . Permanent tolerances have been established for the total residues of the insecticide endosulfan (6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-6,9-methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3-oxide, expressed as the sum of α- and β-endosulfan), and its metabolite, endosulfan-sulfate (6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-6,9-methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3-dioxide) in or on a variety of raw agricultural and livestock commodities (40 CFR 180.182). The chronic assessment is based on a chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) of 0.0006 mg/kg bwt/day. The acute assessment is based on an acute PAD of 0.0015 mg/kg bwt/day for all population subgroups.

i. Food . Chronic and acute dietary exposure estimates resulting from the proposed import tolerance and all currently registered uses of endosulfan, except the pending deletions of succulent beans, succulent peas, grapes, spinach, and pecans are well within acceptable limits for all sectors of the population. Potential dietary exposures from food were estimated using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM TM ) software system (Exponent, Inc.) and the 1989-1992 USDA consumption data. For the chronic analysis, mean residue values were calculated from the appropriate field trials or monitoring studies conducted for endosulfan, which were reviewed in EPA's most recent dietary risk assessment (Endosulfan reregistration eligibility decisions (RED), November 2002). For the acute analysis, the entire distribution of field trial residue or monitoring values were used for non-blended and partially blended commodities, and the mean value used for blended commodities. Processing factors were obtained from good laboratory practice (GLP) processing studies for the appropriate commodities. Percent crop treated values were obtained from the RED dietary assessment. The dietary risks (acute, chronic) concerning the tolerance reassessment indicate the following: for the chronic analysis the most highly exposed sub-population was children 1-2 years old utilizing 19.5% of the cPAD or 0.000117 mg/kg bwt/day. The U.S. population utilized 6.4% of the cPAD or 0.000038 mg/kg bwt/day. For the acute analysis the most highly exposed sub-population was again children 1-2 years old at 84.9% of the aPAD or 0.001274 mg/kg bwt/day, and the U.S. population at 52.6% of the aPAD or 0.000790 mg/kg bwt/day. Actual exposures are likely to be much less because of the conservative assumptions incorporated in this analysis. The calculated residue contribution from imported coffee is negligible.

ii. Drinking water . Since the proposed tolerance is for imported coffee beans, there is no potential exposure from drinking water.

2. Non-dietary exposure . Endosulfan is currently not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure.

To our knowledge there are currently no available data or other reliable information indicating that any toxic effects produced by endosulfan would be cumulative with those of other pesticides; thus only the potential risks of endosulfan have been considered in this assessment of its aggregate exposure. Once the final framework for cumulative risk assessments is available, the Agency might identify other substances that share a common mechanism of toxicity with endosulfan.

1. U.S. population . Using the assumptions and data described above and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, it can be concluded that the residue contribution of the proposed import tolerance is negligible. The chronic dietary exposure will utilize at most 6.4% of the cPAD, and 52.6% of the aPAD for the U.S. population. The actual exposure, both acute and chronic, is likely to be much less as more realistic data and models are developed. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the PAD because the PAD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risk to human health. The Endosulfan Task Force concludes, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to the U.S. population from acute or chronic aggregate exposure (food and drinking water) to residues of endosulfan in view of the proposed tolerance for imported coffee beans.

2. Infants and children . The EPA HIARC has chosen to retain the 10X Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety factor for endosulfan. Using the assumptions and data described in the exposure section above, the percent of the cPAD that will be used for exposure to residues of endosulfan in food for children 1-2 yrs (the most highly exposed sub-population) is 19.4%. Infants utilize 8.9% of the cPAD. For the acute assessment children 1-2 yrs utilize 84.9% of the aPAD and infants utilize 71.7% of the aPAD. The proposed import tolerance will have minimal impact on the dietary risk. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from aggregate exposure (food and drinking water) to residues of endosulfan from imported coffee beans.

A codex maximum residue level MRL of 0.1 ppm has been established for residues of endosulfan in or on coffee beans.

This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2004-0080. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.