Background

The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established on January 1, 1995, as the common international institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its members in matters related to the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements. The WTO is the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). U.S. membership in the WTO was approved and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act was signed into law by the President on December 8, 1994. The Uruguay Round Agreements became effective, with respect to the United States, on January 1, 1995. Pursuant to section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, the President is required to designate an agency to be responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization, Codex, International Office of Epizootics, and the International Plant Protection Convention. The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the agency responsible for informing the public of sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated to the Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the responsibility to inform the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex. The FSIS Administrator has, in turn, assigned the responsibility for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex to the U.S. Codex Office, FSIS.

Codex was created in 1962 by two U.N. organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the principal international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled. In the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manage and carry out U.S. Codex activities.

As the agency responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of Codex, FSIS publishes this notice in the Federal Register annually. Attachment 1 (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Activities of Codex) sets forth the following information:

1. The sanitary or phytosanitary standards under consideration or planned for consideration; and

2. For each sanitary or phytosanitary standard specified:

a. A description of the consideration or planned consideration of the standard;

b. Whether the United States is participating or plans to participate in the consideration of the standard;

c. The agenda for United States participation, if any; and

d. The agency responsible for representing the United States with respect to the standard.

To obtain copies of those standards listed in Attachment 1 that are under consideration by Codex, please contact the Codex delegate or the U.S. Codex office. This notice also solicits public comment on those standards that are under consideration or planned for consideration and recommendations for new standards. The delegate, in conjunction with the responsible agency, will take the comments received into account in participating in the consideration of the standards and in proposing matters to be considered by Codex.

The United States' delegate will facilitate public participation in the United States Government's activities relating to Codex Alimentarius. The United States' delegate will maintain a list of individuals, groups, and organizations that have expressed an interest in the activities of the Codex committees and will disseminate information regarding United States' delegation activities to interested parties. This information will include the current status of each agenda item; the United States Government's position or preliminary position on the agenda items; and the time and place of planning meetings and debriefing meetings following Codex committee sessions. In addition, the U.S. Codex Office makes much of the same information available through its Web page, http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/Codex_Alimentarius/index.asp. Please visit the Web page or notify the appropriate U.S. delegate or the Office of U.S. Codex Alimentarius, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, if you would like to access or receive information about specific committees.

The information provided in Attachment 1 describes the status of Codex standard-setting activities by the Codex Committees for the time periods from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2004, and June 1, 2004 to May 31, 2005. In addition, the following attachments are included:

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that the public and in particular that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov and through the Regulations.gov Web site. The Regulations.gov Web site is the central online rulemaking portal of the United States government. It is being offered as a public service to increase participation in the Federal government's regulatory activities. FSIS participates in Regulations.gov and will accept comments on documents published on the site. The site allows visitors to search by keyword or Department or Agency for rulemakings that allow for public comment. Each entry provides a quick link to a comment form so that visitors can type in their comments and submit them to FSIS. The Web site is located at http://www.regulations.gov.

FSIS also will make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service consisting of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals who have requested to be included. The update also is available on the FSIS Web page. Through Listserv and the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission will hold its Twenty-Seventh Session June 28-July 3, 2004 in Geneva, Switzerland. At that time it will consider procedural matters, the standards, codes of practice, and related matters brought to its attention by the general subject committees, commodity committees, ad hoc Task Forces and member delegations. It will also consider options or strategies regarding the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards, as well as budgetary and strategic planning issues. The issue of Codex interaction with other international organizations will also be discussed. At this Session, the Commission will elect a Chair and three Vice Chairs.

Prior to the Commission meeting, the Executive Committee will meet at its Fifty-fourth Session on June 24-26, 2004. It is composed of the chairperson, vice-chairpersons and seven members elected from the Commission, one from each of the following geographic regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Near East, North America, and South-West Pacific. In addition, regional coordinators from the six regions will attend as observers. It will discuss implementation of the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards, matters arising from reports of Codex Committees, standards management issues, and the Trust Fund for the Participation of Developing Countries and Countries in Transition in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius.

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) determines priorities for the consideration of residues of veterinary drugs in foods and recommends Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for veterinary drugs. A veterinary drug is defined as any substance applied or administered to a food producing animal, such as meat or dairy animals, poultry, fish or bees, for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic purposes or for modification of physiological functions or behavior.

A Codex Maximum Limit for Veterinary Drugs (MRLVD) is the maximum concentration of residue resulting from the use of a veterinary drug (expressed in mg/kg or ug/kg on a fresh weight basis) that is adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be permitted or recognized as acceptable in or on a food. An MRLVD is based on the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) and indicates the amount of residue in food that is considered to be without appreciable toxicological hazard. An MRLVD also takes into account other relevant public health risks as well as food technological aspects.

When establishing an MRLVD, consideration is also given to residues that occur in food of plant origin and/or the environment. Furthermore, the MRLVD may be reduced to be consistent with good practices in the use of veterinary drugs and to the extent that practical analytical methods are available.

Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI): An estimate by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the amount of a veterinary drug, expressed on a body weight basis, that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk (standard man = 60 kg).

The 15th Session of CCRVDF will take place in the United States on October 25-28, 2004. The following will be discussed by the Committee:

Draft Maximum Residue Limits for:

• Flumequine.

• Neomycin.

• Dicyclanil.

• Melengestrol acetate.

• Trichlorfon (metrifonate).

Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for:

• Cefuroxime.

• Cypermethrin.

• Alpha-Cypermethrin.

The Committee continues to work on:

• Proposed Draft Code of Practice to Minimize and Contain Antimicrobial Resistance.

• Proposed Draft Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of a Regulatory Program for Control of Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods.

• Risk Analysis Principles and Methodologies, including Risk Assessment Policies in the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods.

• Proposed Draft Appendix on the Prevention and Control of Veterinary Drug Residues in Milk and Milk Products.

• Priority List of Veterinary Drugs Requiring Evaluation or Reevaluation.

• Methods of Analysis and Sampling Issues.

• Performance-based Criteria.

• Identification of Routine Methods of Analysis.

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) (a) establishes or endorses permitted maximum or guideline levels for individual food additives, contaminants, and naturally occurring toxicants in food and animal feed; (b) prepares priority lists of food additives and contaminants for toxicological evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA); (c) recommends specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by the Commission; (d) considers methods of analysis for food additives and contaminants; and (e) considers and elaborates standards and codes for related subjects such as labeling of food additives when sold as such and food irradiation. The following matters are under consideration by the Commission at its 27th Session in July 2004. The relevant document is ALINORM 4/27/12.

To be considered at Step 8:

• Draft Risk Analysis Principles applied by the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants.

To be considered at Step 8:

• General Standard for Food Additives: Food Category System.

• General Standard for Food Additives: Draft Food Additive Provisions in Tables 1 and 2.

To be considered at Step 5/8 of the Accelerated Procedure:

• General Standard for Food Additives: Proposed Draft Food Additive Provisions in Tables 1 and 2.

• Advisory Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives.

• Draft Revisions to the Codex International Numbering System for Food Additives.

The Committee is continuing work on:

• General Standard for Food Additives: Draft Food Additive Provisions (in Table 1 and Table 3).

• General Standard for Food Additives: Revisions to the Preamble to clarify relationship between the General Standard and food additive provisions in Codex Commodity Standards and to clarify the principles for establishing food additive provisions in the General Standard.

• International Numbering System.

• Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives.

• Inventory of processing aids.

• Discussion paper on food additives used as carriers.

• Discussion paper on the Harmonization of Terms Used by Codex and JECFA.

• Terms of reference for a risk assessment of the use of “active chlorine” by a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation.

To be considered at Step 8:

• General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins: Preamble.

• General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins: Proposed Draft Principles for Exposure Assessment of Contaminants and Toxins in Foods.

• CCFAC Policy for Exposure Assessment of Contaminants and Toxins in Foods or Food Groups.

• Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Aflatoxin Contamination in Peanuts.

• Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Lead Contamination in Foods.

To be considered at Step 5:

• Draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Aflatoxin Contamination in Tree Nuts.

• Draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Inorganic Tin Contamination in Canned Foods.

• Draft Revised Guideline Levels for Radionuclides in Foods Following Accidental Nuclear Contamination for Use in International Trade, Including Guideline Levels for Long-Term Use.

The Committee is continuing work on:

• Maximum levels for aflatoxin in tree nuts (almonds, hazelnuts, and pistachios).

• Discussion paper on Aflatoxin Contamination in Brazil Nuts.

• Maximum level for lead in fish.

• Maximum levels for cadmium in polished rice, wheat grain, potato, stem and root vegetables, leafy vegetables, other vegetables, and molluscs.

• Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Source Directed Measures to Reduce Dioxin and Dioxin-like PCB Contamination in Foods.

• Discussion paper with proposals for maximum levels for 3-monochloropropanediol in acid-hydrolyzed vegetable protein (acid-HVP) and acid-HVP containing foods.

• Discussion paper on acrylamide.

The Committee is beginning new work on:

• Sampling plans for aflatoxin in tree nuts (almonds, Brazil nuts, hazelnuts, and pistachios).

• Discussion paper on options for incorporating the JECFA safety evaluation of flavors into the Codex system.

• Discussion paper on polyaromatic hydrocarbons.

• Discussion paper on methylmercury in fish.

• Priority List of Food Additives, Contaminants and Naturally Occurring Toxicants Proposed for Evaluation by JECFA.

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: YES.

The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues recommends to the Codex Alimentarius Commission establishment of maximum limits for pesticide residues for specific food items or in groups of food. A Codex Maximum Residue Limit for Pesticide (MRLP) is the maximum concentration of a pesticide residue (expressed as mg/kg), recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be legally permitted in or on food commodities and animal feeds. Foods derived from commodities that comply with the respective MRLPs are intended to be toxicologically acceptable, that is, consideration of the various dietary residue intake estimates and determinations both at the national and international level in comparison with the ADI, * should indicate that foods complying with Codex MRLPs are safe for human consumption. * Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of a chemical is the daily intake which, during an entire lifetime, appears to be without appreciable risk to the health of the consumer on the basis of all the known facts at the time of the evaluation of the chemical by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues. It is expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilogram of body weight.

Codex MRLPs are primarily intended to apply in international trade and are derived from reviews conducted by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) following:

(a) Review of residue data from supervised trials and supervised uses including those reflecting national good agricultural practices (GAP). Data from supervised trials conducted at the highest nationally recommended, authorized, or registered uses are included in the review. In order to accommodate variations in national pest control requirements, Codex MRLPs take into account the higher levels shown to arise in such supervised trials, which are considered to represent effective pest control practices, and

(b) Toxicological assessment of the pesticide and its residue.

The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 27th Session in July 2004. The relevant document is ALINORM 04/27/24.

To be considered at Step 8:

• Draft and Draft Revised Maximum Residue Limits.

To be considered at Step 5/8:

• Proposed Draft and Proposed Draft Revised Maximum Residue Limits.

• Draft Revision of the Guidelines on Good Laboratory Practice in Pesticide Residue Analysts.

To be considered at Step 5:

• Proposed Draft and Proposed Draft Revised Maximum Residue Limits.

The committee is continuing work on:

• Consideration of Draft and Proposed Draft Residue Maximum Limits in Foods and Feeds.

• Pilot Project for the examination of national MRLs as Interim Codex MRLs for safer replacement pesticides.

• Proposals for Improvement of Methodology for Point Estimates.

• Risk Analysis Policies Used in Establishing Codex MRLs.

• Revision of the List of Recommended Methods on Analysis for Pesticide Residues.

• Estimation of Uncertainty.

• Proposals for new Tropical Fruit and Vegetable Commodities.

• Elaboration of MRLs for Spices.

• Revision of the Codex Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds.

• Criteria for Prioritization Process.

• Revision of Codex Priority Lists of Pesticides for review by JMPR.

Responsible Agency: EPA; USDA/AMS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling:

(a) Defines the criteria appropriate to Codex Methods of Analysis and Sampling;

(b) Serves as a coordinating body for Codex with other international groups working in methods of analysis and sampling and quality assurance systems for laboratories;

(c) Specifies, on the basis of final recommendations submitted to it by the other bodies referred to in (b) above, Reference Methods of Analysis and Sampling appropriate to Codex Standards which are generally applicable to a number of foods;

(d) Considers, amends, if necessary, and endorses, as appropriate, methods of analysis and sampling proposed by Codex (Commodity) Committees, except that methods of analysis and sampling for residues of pesticides or veterinary drugs in food, the assessment of microbiological quality and safety in food, and the assessment of specifications for food additives do not fall within the terms of reference of this Committee;

(e) Elaborates sampling plans and procedures, as may be required;

(f) Considers specific sampling and analysis problems submitted to it by the Commission or any of its Committees; and

(g) Defines procedures, protocols, guidelines or related texts for the assessment of food laboratory proficiency, as well as quality assurance systems for laboratories.

The 25th Session of the Committee met in Budapest, Hungary, on March 8-12, 2004. The relevant document is ALINORM 04/27/23. The following will be considered by the Commission at its 27th Session in July 2004:

To be considered at Step 8:

• Draft General Guidelines on Sampling.

• Draft Guidelines on Measurement Uncertainty.

To be considered at Step 5:

• Proposed Draft Guidelines for Evaluating Acceptable Methods of Analysis.

The Committee will continue work on:

• Criteria for Evaluating Acceptable Methods of Analysis.

• Proposed Draft Guidelines for Settling of Disputes on Analytical (test) Results.

• Consideration of the Fitness-For-Purpose Approach to Evaluating Methods of Analysis.

• Further Review of the Analytical Terminology for Codex Use in the Procedural Manual.

• Endorsement of Methods of Analysis and Sampling Provisions in Codex Standards.

• Criteria for Methods of Analysis for the Detection and Identification of Foods derived from Biotechnology.

• Methods of Analysis for the determination of dioxins and PCBs.

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA; USDA/ARS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems is charged with developing principles and guidelines for food import and export inspection and certification systems to protect consumers and to ensure fair practices in international trade in food. Additionally, the Committee develops principles and guidelines for the application of measures by competent authorities to provide assurance that foods comply with essential requirements, especially statutory health requirements. This encompasses work on: equivalence of food inspection systems including equivalence agreements, processes and procedures to ensure that sanitary measures are implemented; guidelines on food import control systems; and guidelines on food product certification and information exchange. The development of guidelines for the appropriate utilization of quality assurance systems to ensure that foodstuffs conform to requirements and to facilitate trade are also included in the Committee's terms of reference.

The following will be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 27th Session in July 2004.

To be considered at Step 5/8:

• Proposed Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Exchange of Information in Food Safety Emergency Situations.

New Work:

• Proposed Draft Appendices to the Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification.

• Proposed Draft Principles for Electronic Certification.

• Proposed Draft Guidelines for Risk-based Inspection of Imported Foods.

The committee is continuing work on:

• Discussion paper on the Revision of the Guidelines for the Exchange of Information Between Countries on Rejections of Imported Foods.

• Discussion paper on “traceability/product tracing” in the context of Food Inspection and Certification Systems.

• Discussion paper on the Revision of the Guidelines for Generic Official Certificate Formats and the Production and Issuance of Certificates.

• Discussion paper on clarification of the reference “a reasonable interval” in the Guidelines for Food Import Control Systems.

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on General Principles deals with procedure and general matters as are referred to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The 19th (Extraordinary) Session addressed issues related to decisions made by the Commission regarding the FAO/WHO Codex Evaluation. The 20th Session which met on May 3-7, 2004 in Paris, France, considered the regular work of the Committee. The relevant documents are ALINORM 04/27/33 and ALINORM 04/27/33A. Matters from the 19th Session to be considered for adoption by the 27th Commission in July 2004 are:

• Procedural Amendments to the Rules of Procedure.

• Proposed Amendments to the Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts.

• Draft Criteria for the Appointment of Chairpersons.

• Draft Guidelines to Host Governments of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces.

• Draft Guidelines on the Conduct of Meetings of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces.

• Draft Guidelines to Chairpersons of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces.

At its 20th (regular) Session, the Committee continued work on:

• Proposed Draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety (Guidance to National Governments).

• Proposed Draft Revised Code of Ethics for International Trade in Foods.

• Guidelines for Cooperation with International Intergovernmental Organizations.

• Definition of traceability/product tracing.

• Proposed Amendment to Rule VII.5 (Observers) of the Rules of Procedure.

• Review of the Principles concerning the Participation of International Non-Governmental Organizations in the work of the Commission.

• Matters arising from the 19th (Extraordinary) Session:.

(a) Clarification of the respective roles of Members of the Executive Committee elected on a geographic basis and of Coordinators.

(b) Clarification of the duration of the terms of the Coordinators and other Members of the Executive Committee.

(c) Relevance of the current acceptance and notification procedures for Codex standards.

(d) Possible reorganization of the structure and presentation of the Procedural Manual.

(e) Particular situation of the North America Region in the context of Rule IV.1.

(f) Implication of the exclusive use of electronic distribution of Codex documents to Members and Observers.

(g) Criteria applicable for the participation of developing country members in the Executive Committee in the light of the proposed Rule XII.3 and the Codex budget available. At its 21st (Extraordinary) Session the Committee will continue work on:

• Consideration of the Status of Observers in the Executive Committee.

• Revision of the Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities.

• Draft Guidelines on Physical Working Groups and Draft Guidelines on Electronic Working Groups.

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS; HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Food Labelling is responsible for drafting provisions on labelling issues assigned by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The reference document is ALINORM 04/27/22. The Committee held its thirty-second Session in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on May 10-14, 2004. It considered the following items:

• Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods: Draft Revised Annex 2—Permitted Substances.

• Report of the Working Group on the Management of the Agenda Items on Labelling of Foods and Food Ingredients Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering.

• Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods—(Draft Recommendations for the Labelling of Foods Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering) (Definitions).

• Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Labelling of Food and food Ingredients obtained through certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering: Labelling Provisions.

• Draft Guidelines for the Use of Health and Nutrition Claims.

• Proposed Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods: Quantitative Declaration of Ingredients.

• Discussion paper on Misleading Claims.

• Discussion paper on Country of Origin Labelling.

• Discussion on Food Labelling and Traceability/Product Tracing.

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene has four primary responsibilities. First, the Committee drafts basic provisions on food hygiene applicable to all food. These provisions normally take the form of Codes of Hygienic Practice for a specific commodity ( e.g. , bottled water) or group of commodities ( e.g. , milk and milk products). Second, it suggests and prioritizes areas where there is a need for microbiological risk assessment at the international level and considers microbiological risk management matters in relation to food hygiene and in relation to the risk assessment activities of FAO and WHO. Third, it considers, amends, if necessary, and endorses food hygiene provisions that are incorporated into specific Codex commodity standards by the Codex commodity committees. Fourth, the Committee provides such other general guidance to the Commission on matters relating to food hygiene as may be necessary. The following items will be considered by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its 27th Session in July 2004. The relevant document is ALINORM 04/27/13.

To be considered at Step 8:

• Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk Products.

• Definitions of Food Safety Objective, Performance Objective, and Performance Criterion.

The committee continues to work on:

• Discussion papers on the management of the work of the Committee.

• Work on Microbiological Risk Assessment/Risk Management.

• Criteria to Establish Work Priorities.

• Options for Cross-Committee Interaction Process.

• Proposed Draft Guidelines on the Application of the General Principles of Food Hygiene to the [management] of Listeria monocytogenes in Foods.

• Proposed Draft Revision of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Eggs and Egg Products.

• Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Validation of Food Hygienic Control Measures.

• Endorsement of Hygiene Provisions in Codex Standards and Codes of Practice.

• Reports of ad hoc Expert Consultations.

• Risk Management Strategies for Salmonella spp. in Poultry.

• Risk Management Strategies for Campylobacter spp. in Poultry.

• Risk Profile for Enterohemorrhagic E. coli , including the Identification of Commodities of Concern, including Sprouts, Ground Beef and Pork.

• Discussion paper on the Proposed Draft Revision of the Recommended International Code of Practice for Foods for Infants and Children; Risk Profile on E. sakazakii.

• Discussion paper on Proposed Draft Guidelines for Evaluating Objectionable Matter in Food.

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA; FSIS/USDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables is responsible for elaborating world-wide standards and codes of practice for fresh fruits and vegetables. The following standards will be considered by the 27th Session of the Commission in July 2004. The relevant document is ALINORM 04/27/35.

To be considered at Step 8:

• Draft Standard for Oranges.

To be considered at Step 5:

• Proposed Draft Standard for Tomatoes.

The Committee continues work on:

• Draft Standard for Table Grapes retained at Step 7.

• Proposed Draft Standard for Rambutan.

• Proposed Draft Standard for Apples.

• Section 2.1.1 (Maturity Requirements) and Annex on Small-berry Varieties (Section 3.1) (draft Codex Standard for Table Grapes).

• Proposed Draft Guide for the Quality Control of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.

• Standard Layout for Codex Standards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.

Responsible Agency: USDA/AMS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses is responsible for studying nutritional problems referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Committee also drafts general provisions, as appropriate, on nutritional aspects of all foods and develops standards, guidelines, or related texts for foods for special dietary uses. The relevant document is ALINORM 03/27/26. The following items will be considered by the 27th Session of the Commission in July 2004.

To be adopted at Step 5:

• Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Processed Cereal-Based Foods for Infants and Young Children.

• Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Infant Formula.

• Proposed Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements.

The Committee continues work on:

• Proposed Draft Revision of the Advisory Lists of Nutrient Compounds for Use in Foods for Special Dietary Uses intended for use by Infants and Young Children.

• Guidelines for Use of Nutrition Claims—Draft Table of Conditions for Nutrient Contents Claims (Part B containing Provisions on Dietary Fibre) at Step 6.

• Draft Revised Standards for Gluten-Free Foods at Step 7.

• Proposed Draft Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims.

• Guidelines on the Application of Risk Analysis to the Work of the CCNFSDU.

• Discussion paper on the FAO Technical Workshop on Energy Conversion Factors.

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Fish and Fishery Products Committee is responsible for elaborating standards for fresh, frozen and otherwise processed fish, crustaceans and mollusks. The following will be considered by the 27th Session of the Commission when it meets in June 2004. The relevant document is ALINORM 04/27/18.

To be considered at Step 8:

• Draft Standard for Salt Atlantic Herring and Salted Sprat.

• Draft Model Certificate for Fish and Fishery Products (Sanitary Certificate).

• Draft Amendment to the Standard for Quick Frozen Lobsters.

To be considered at Step 5/8:

• Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (aquaculture and quick frozen coated fish products).

To be considered at Step 5:

• Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Salted Fish and Dried Salted Fish.

The Committee continues work on the following:

• Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (other sections).

• Proposed Draft Standard for Live and Raw Bivalve Mollusks.

• Proposed Draft Standard for Smoked Fish.

• Proposed Draft Standard for Granular Sturgeon Caviar.

• Proposed Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Scallop Adductor Muscle Meat.

• Revision of the procedure for the Inclusion of Species.

• Proposed Draft Amendment of the Labelling Section in the Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine-Type Products (Clupea bentincki).

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA; USDC/NOAA/NMFS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products is responsible for establishing international codes and standards for milk and milk products. The Committee held its 6th Session in Auckland, NZ on April 26-30, 2004. The relevant document is ALINORM 04/27/11.

The Committee worked on the following:

• Proposed Draft Amendment to Section 3.3 (Composition) of the Codex General Standard for Cheese.

• Proposed Draft Standard for Products in Which Milk Components are Substituted by Non-Milk Components.

• Evaporated Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat.

• Sweetened Condensed Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat.

• Skimmed Milk Powder with Vegetable Fat.

• Proposed Draft Model Export Certificate for Milk and Milk Products.

• Methods of Analysis and Sampling for Milk Products.

• Draft Revised Standards for Individual Cheeses.

• Draft Revised Standard for Processed Cheese.

• Draft Revised Standard for Dairy Spreads.

• Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Whey Cheese.

• Proposed Standard for Parmesan Cheese.

• Discussion paper on Proposed Revision of the Codex Standard for Extra Hard Grating Cheese.

Responsible Agency: USDA/AMS; HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Fats and Oils is responsible for elaborating standards for fats and oils of animal, vegetable, and marine origin. The Committee will hold its next session on February 21-25, 2005, in London, England.

The Committee continues work on:

• Draft Standard for Fat Spreads and Blended Spreads.

• Proposed Draft Amendments to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils:

• Amendment to Sesame Seed Oil.

• Rice Bran Oil.

• Draft List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes.

• Proposed Draft List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes.

• Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Olive Oil: Linolenic Acid content.

• Proposed Draft Amendments to the Recommended International Code of Practice for the Storage and Transport of Edible Fats and Oils in Bulk:

• Amendments to Table 1.

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA; USDA/ARS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables is responsible for elaborating standards for Processed Fruits and Vegetables. After having been adjourned sine die , the Committee reconvened in Washington, DC, in March 1998 to begin work revising the standards. The Committee will hold its next session on September 27-October 1, 2004.

The committee is continuing work on:

• Draft Codex Standard for Pickled Products.

• Proposed Draft Revised Standards for:

• Processed Tomato Concentrates.

• Canned Tomatoes.

• Canned Vegetables including Guidelines for Packing Media for Canned Vegetables.

• Jams, Jellies and Marmalades.

• Soy Sauce.

• Canned Citrus Fruits.

Other work:

• Methods of Analysis for Processed Fruits and Vegetables.

• Priority List for the Standardization of Processed Fruits and Vegetables.

Responsible Agency: USDA/AMS; HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The 24th Session of the Commission decided to reactivate the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene with New Zealand as Host Government. The Terms of Reference were amended to reflect the inclusion of poultry in its mandate. The relevant document is ALINORM 04/27/16.

The Committee continues to work on:

• Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat at Step 5.

• Incorporating the Hygiene Provisions for Processed Meat in the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat for discussion.

• Attaching the Proposed Draft Annex on Risk-Based Post-Mortem Examination Procedures for Meat and the Proposed Draft Annex on Microbiological Verification of Process Control of Meat Hygiene as Annex I and II, respectively.

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The 26th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Standard for Instant Noodles at Step 5, on the recommendation of the Coordinating Committee for Asia, and advanced it to Step 6 for consideration by the Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes by correspondence. The United States, as host government, has circulated the Draft Standard for comments and will circulate the revised version for another round of comments following discussion in CCFAC regarding additives and peroxide values.

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA; USDA/GIPSA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Several Codex Alimentarius Commodity Committees have adjourned sine die. The following Committees fall into this category:

The Commission at its 23rd Session established the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Animal Feeding to develop guidelines or standards as appropriate on good animal feeding practices. The Revised Draft Code of Practice for Good Animal Feeding was held at Step 8 by the Commission at its 26th Session in June 2003, with the exception that the definition of “feed additive” and paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 were advanced to step 6. The Task Force held its 5th Session on May 17-19, 2004 and discussed:

• Revised Draft Code of Practice for Good Animal Feeding (definition of “feed additive” and paragraphs 11, 12, and 13)

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA; USDA/APHIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Commission at its 23rd Session established this Task Force to revise and consolidate the existing Codex standards and guidelines for fruit and vegetable juices and related products, giving preference to general standards. These standards were originally developed by the Joint UNECE/Codex Group of Experts on the Standardization of Fruit Juices which had been abolished by its parent organizations. The Task Force will hold its fourth session in Brazil, on October 11-15, 2004.

The committee is discussing:

• Proposed Draft Minimum Brix Level for Reconstituted Juice and Reconstituted Puree and Minimum Juice and/or Puree Content for Fruit Nectars (%v/v).

• Grape, Guava, Mandarin/Tangerine, Mango, Passion Fruit and Tamarind (Indian date) juice at step 7.

• Orange, Lemon, Lime and Pineapple Juice at step 4.

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA; USDA/AMS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is made up of an Executive Committee, as well as approximately 30 subsidiary bodies. Included in these subsidiary bodies are coordinating committees for groups of countries located in proximity to each other who share common concerns. There are currently six Regional Coordinating Committees:

• Coordinating Committee for Africa.

• Coordinating Committee for Asia.

• Coordinating Committee for Europe.

• Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean.

• Coordinating Committee for the Near East.

• Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific.

The United States participates as an active member of the Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific, and is informed of the other coordinating committees through meeting documents, final reports, and representation at meetings. Each regional committee:

• Defines the problems and needs of the region concerning food standards and food control;

• Promotes within the committee contacts for the mutual exchange of information on proposed regulatory initiatives and problems arising from food control and stimulates the strengthening of food control infrastructures;

• Recommends to the Commission the development of world-wide standards for products of interest to the region, including products considered by the committee to have an international market potential in the future; and

• Serves a general coordinating role for the region and performs such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Commission.

The Coordinating Committee is responsible for defining problems and needs concerning food standards and food control of all Codex member countries of the region. The Eighth Session of the Committee will take place in Apia, Samoa on October 19-22, 2004. Items on the agenda may include:

• Trust Fund for the Participation of Developing Countries in Codex Standard Setting Procedures.

• Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards.

• Consideration of Traceability/Product Tracing.

• Strategic Plan for the Coordinating Committee for North America and the Southwest Pacific.

• Cooperation between Codex and the International Office of Epizootics.

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Dr. Karen Hulebak, Assistant Administrator, Office of Public Health Science, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 3130, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: (202) 720-8609, Fax: (202) 720-9893, E-mail: karen.hulebak@fsis.usda.gov.

Mr. David L. Priester, International Standards Coordinator, Fruit & Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 2049, South Building, Stop 0140, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0240, Phone: (202) 720-2185, Fax: (202) 720-8871, E-mail: david.priester@usda.gov.

Dr. Stephen F. Sundlof, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place (HFV-1), Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: (301) 827-2950, Fax: (301) 827-4401, E-mail: ssundlof@cvm.fda.gov.

Mr. Steven N. Tanner, Director, Technical Services Division, Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards, Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 10383 N. Executive Hills Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64153-1394, Phone: (816) 891-0401, Fax: (816) 891-0478, E-mail: stanner@tsd.fgiskc.usda.gov.

Dr. Steven D. Vaughn, Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: (301) 827-1796, Fax: (301) 594-2297, E-mail: SVaughn@cvm.fda.gov.

Dr. Alice Thaler, Staff Director, Animal and Egg Production Food Safety Staff, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 690-2683, Fax: (202) 720-8213, E-mail: alice.thaler@fsis.usda.gov.

Dr. Terry C. Troxell, Director, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-300), Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1700, Fax: (301) 436-2632, E-mail: Terry.Troxell@cfsan.fda.gov.

Dr. Dennis M. Keefe, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-255), Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (202) 418-3113, Fax: (202) 418-3131, E-mail: dennis.keefe@cfsan.fda.gov.

Ms. Lois Rossi, Director of Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: (703) 305-5035, Fax: (703) 305-5147, E-mail: Rossi.Lois@epamail.epa.gov.

Dr. Robert Epstein, Associate Deputy Administrator, Science and Technology, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Room 3522S, Mail Stop 0222, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20090, Phone: (202) 720-2158, Fax: (202) 720-1484, E-mail: Robert.Epstein@usda.gov.

Dr. Gregory Diachenko, Director, Division of Chemistry Research and Environmental Review, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Food and Drug Administration (HFS-245), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1898, Fax: (301) 436-2634, E-mail: Gregory.Diachenko@cfsan.fda.gov.

Mr. Donald C. Kendall, Technical Services Division, Grain, Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 10383 N. Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153-1394, Phone: (816) 891-0463, Fax: (816) 891-0478, E-mail: Donnald.C.Kendall@usda.gov.

Dr. Catherine Carnevale, Director, Office of Constituent Operations, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-550), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-2380, Fax: (301) 436-2618, E-mail: Catherine.Carnevale@cfsan.fda.gov.

Ms. Karen Stuck, Assistant Administrator, Office of International Policy, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 2137, South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: (202) 720-3470, Fax: (202) 720-7990, E-mail: Karen.Stuck@fsis.usda.gov.

Mr. L. Robert Lake, Director, Office of Regulations and Policy, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-4), Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-2379, Fax: (301) 436-2637, E-mail: RLake@cfsan.fda.gov.

Mary K. Cutshall, Acting Director, Strategic Initiatives, Partnerships and Outreach Staff, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 405 Aerospace Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: (202) 690-6520, Fax: (202) 690-6519, E-mail: Mary.Cutshall@fsis.usda.gov.

Dr. Robert L. Buchanan, Director, Office of Science, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-006), Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-2369, Fax: (301) 436-2642, E-mail: Robert.Buchanan@cfsan.fda.gov.

Dr. Perfecto Santiago, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Office of Policy, Program and Employee Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 402 Cotton Annex, 300 12th St., SW. Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 205-0699, Fax: (202) 401-1760, E-mail: Perfecto.Santiago@fsis.usda.gov.

Vacant.

Vacant.

Mr. Dorian LaFond, International Standards Coordinator, Fruit and Vegetables Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 2086, South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 690-4944, Fax: (202) 720-4722, E-mail: dorian.lafond@usda.gov,

Vacant.

Mr. Philip C. Spiller, Director, Office of Seafood (HFS-400), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-2300, Fax: (301) 436-2599, E-mail: Philip.Spiller@cfsan.fda.gov.

Richard V. Cano, Acting Director, National Seafood Inspection Program, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: (301) 713-2355, Fax: (301) 713-1081, Email: richard.cano@noaa.gov.

Mr. Charles W. Cooper, Director, International Policy and Industry Outreach Branch, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-585), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1714, Fax: (301) 436-2618, E-mail Charles.Cooper@cfsan.fda.gov.

Mr. David Shipman, Deputy Administrator, Federal Grain Inspection Division, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 1661, South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 720-9170, Fax: (202) 205-9237, E-mail: dshipman@gipsadc.usda.gov.

Mr. Duane Spomer, Chief, Dairy Standardization Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 2750, South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 720-9382, Fax: (202) 720-2643, E-mail: duane.spomer@usda.gov.

John F. Sheehan, Director, Division of Dairy and Egg Safety, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-365), Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: (301) 436-1488, Fax: (301) 436-2632, E-mail: john.sheehan@cfsan.fda.gov.

Mr. Charles W. Cooper, Director, International Policy and Industry Outreach Branch, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-585), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1714, Fax: (301) 436-2618, E-mail: Charles.Cooper@cfsan.fda.gov.

Ms. Kathleen Warner (Acting), U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1815 N. University Street, Peoria, IL 61604, Phone (309) 681-6584, Fax: (309) 681-6668, E-mail: warnerk@ncaur.usda.gov.

Mr. Charles W. Cooper, Director, International Policy and Industry Outreach Branch, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-585), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1714, Fax: (301) 436-2618, E-mail: Charles.Cooper@cfsan.fda.gov.

Dr. Michelle Smith, Food Technologist, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-306), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-2024, Fax: (301) 436-2651, E-mail: Michelle.Smith@cfsan.fda.gov.

Dr. Thomas L. Tew, Research Geneticist, Sugarcane Research Unit, Agricultural Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 5883 USDA Road, Houma, LA 70360, Phone: (504) 872-5042, Fax: (504) 868-8369, E-mail: ttew@nola.srrc.usda.gov.

Dr. Dennis M. Keefe, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-255), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (202) 418-3113, Fax: (202) 418-3131, E-mail: dennis.keefe@cfsan.fda.gov.

Mr. Dorian Lafond, International Standards Coordinator, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 2086, South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 690-4944, Fax: (202) 720-0016, E-mail: Dorian.Lafond@usda.gov.

Mr. Charles W. Cooper, Director, International Policy and Industry Outreach Branch, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-585), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1714, Fax: (301) 436-2618, E-mail: Charles.Cooper@cfsan.fda.gov.

Dr. Wilda H. Martinez, Area Director, ARS North Atlantic Area, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 600 E. Mermaid Lane, Wyndmoor, PA 19038, Phone: (215) 233-6593, Fax: (215) 233-6719, E-mail: wmartinez@ars.usda.gov.

Dr. Jeanne Rader, Director, Division of Research and Applied Technology, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-840), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1786, Fax: (301) 436-2640, E-mail: Jeanne.Rader@cfsan.fda.gov.

Dr. Perfecto Santiago, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Office of Policy, Program and Employee Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 402 Cotton Annex, 300 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 205-0699, Fax: (202) 401-1760, E-mail: Perfecto.Santiago@fsis.usda.gov.

Dr. William James, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of International Affairs, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 3143, South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 720-8601, Fax: (202) 690-3856, E-mail: william.james@fsis.usda.gov.

Dr. Terry C. Troxell, Director, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-300), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1700, Fax: (301) 436-2632, E-mail: terry.troxell@cfsan.fda.gov.

Ms. Shellee Anderson, Food Technologist, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-800), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1491, Fax: (301) 436-2636, E-mail: Shellee.Anderson@cfsan.fda.gov.

Mr. Martin Stutsman, Consumer Safety Officer, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-306), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1642, Fax: (301) 436-2651, E-mail: Martin.Stutsman@cfsan.fda.gov.

Vacant.

Dr. Stephen F. Sundlof, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Place (HFV-1), Metro Park N. 4, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: (301) 827-2950, Fax: (301) 827-4401, E-mail: ssundlof@cvm.fda.gov.

Dr. Lawrence E. Miller, Program Manager, Veterinary Regulatory Support, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Unit 129, Room 4D79, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737, Phone: (301) 734-7633, Fax: (301) 734-8538, E-mail: Lawrence.E.Miller@usda.gov.

There are six regional coordinating committees:

Coordinating Committee for Africa.

Coordinating Committee for Asia.

Coordinating Committee for Europe.

Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean.

Coordinating Committee for the Near East.

Coordinating Committee for North American and the South-West Pacific.

Paulo Almeida, Office Manager, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: (202) 205-7760, Fax: (202) 720-3157, E-mail: Paulo.Almeida@fsis.usda.gov.

Words and phrases have specific meanings when used by the Codex Alimentarius. For the purposes of Codex, the following definitions apply:

1. Food means any substance, whether processed, semi-processed or raw, which is intended for human consumption, and includes drink, chewing gum, and any substance which has been used in the manufacture, preparation or treatment of “food” but does not include cosmetics or tobacco or substances used only as drugs.

2. Food hygiene comprises conditions and measures necessary for the production, processing, storage and distribution of food designed to ensure a safe, sound, wholesome product fit for human consumption.

3. Food additive means any substance not normally consumed as a food by itself and not normally used as a typical ingredient of the food, whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional addition of which to food for a technological (including organoleptic) purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport, or holding of such food results, or may be reasonably expected to result (directly or indirectly), in it or its by-products becoming a component of or otherwise affecting the characteristics of such foods. The food additive term does not include “contaminants” or substances added to food for maintaining or improving nutritional qualities.

4. Contaminant means any substance not intentionally added to food, which is present in such food as a result of the production (including operations carried out in crop husbandry, animal husbandry, and veterinary medicine), manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food or as a result of environmental contamination. The term does not include insect fragments, rodent hairs and other extraneous matters.

5. Pesticide means any substance intended for preventing, destroying, attracting, repelling, or controlling any pest including unwanted species of plants or animals during the production, storage, transport, distribution and processing of food, agricultural commodities, or animal feeds or which may be administered to animals for the control of ectoparasites. The term includes substances intended for use as a plant-growth regulator, defoliant, desiccant, fruit thinning agent, or sprouting inhibitor and substances applied to crops either before of after harvest to protect the commodity from deterioration during storage and transport. The term pesticides excludes fertilizers, plant and animal nutrients, food additives, and animal drugs.

6. Pesticide residue means any specified substance in food, agricultural commodities, or animal feed resulting from the use of a pesticide. The term includes any derivatives of a pesticide, such as conversion products, metabolites, reaction products, and impurities considered to be of toxological significance.

7. Good Agricultural Practice in the Use of Pesticides (GAP) includes the nationally authorized safe uses of pesticides under actual conditions necessary for effective and reliable pest control. It encompasses a range of levels of pesticide applications up to the highest authorized use, applied in a manner that leaves a residue, which is the smallest amount practicable.

Authorized safe uses are determined at the national level and include nationally registered or recommended uses, which take into account public and occupational health and environmental safety considerations.

Actual conditions include any stage in the production, storage, transport, distribution and processing of food commodities and animal feed.

8. Codex Maximum Limit for Pesticide Residues (MRLP) is the maximum concentration of a pesticide residue (expressed as mg/kg), recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be legally permitted in or on food commodities and animal feeds. MRLPs are based on their toxological affects and on GAP data and foods derived from commodities that comply with the respective MRLPs are intended to be toxologically acceptable.

Codex MRLPs, which are primarily intended to apply in international trade, are derived from reviews conducted by the JMPR following:

(a) toxological assessment of the pesticide and its residue, and

(b) review of residue data from supervised trials and supervised uses including those reflecting national good agricultural practices. Data from supervised trials conducted at the highest nationally recommended, authorized, or registered uses are included in the review. In order to accommodate variations in national pest control requirements, Codex MRLPs take into account the higher levels shown to arise in such supervised trials, which are considered to represent effective pest control practices.

Consideration of the various dietary residue intake estimates and determinations both at the national and international level in comparison with the ADI, should indicate that foods complying with Codex MRLPs are safe for human consumption.

9. Veterinary Drug means any substance applied or administered to any food-producing animal, such as meat or milk-producing animals, poultry, fish or bees, whether used for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic purposes or for modification of physiological functions or behavior.

10. Residues of Veterinary Drugs include the parent compounds and/or their metabolites in any edible portion of the animal product, and include residues of associated impurities of the veterinary drug concerned.

11. Codex Maximum Limit for Residues of Veterinary Drugs (MRLVD) is the maximum concentration of residue resulting from the use of a veterinary drug (expressed in mg/kg or μg/kg on a fresh weight basis) that is recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be legally permitted or recognized as acceptable in or on food.

An MRLVD is based on the type and amount of residue considered to be without any toxological hazard for human health as expressed by the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), or on the basis of a temporary ADI that utilizes an additional safety factor. An MRLVD also takes into account other relevant public health risks as well as food technological aspects.

When establishing an MRLVD, consideration is also given to residues that occur in food of plant origin and/or the environment. Furthermore, the MRLVD may be reduced to be consistent with good practices in the use of veterinary drugs and to the extent that practical and analytical methods are available.

12. Good Practice in the Use of Veterinary Drugs (GPVD) is the official recommended or authorized usage including withdrawal periods approved by national authorities, of veterinary drugs under practicable conditions.

13. Processing Aid means any substance or material, not including apparatus or utensils, not consumed as a food ingredient by itself, intentionally used in the processing of raw materials, foods or its ingredients, to fulfill a certain technological purpose during treatment or processing and which may result in the non-intentional but unavoidable presence of residues or derivatives in the final product.

Hazard: A biological, chemical or physical agent in, or condition of, food with the potential to cause an adverse health effect.

Hazard Identification: The identification of biological, chemical, and physical agents capable of causing adverse health effects and which may be present in a particular food or group of foods.

Hazard Characterization: The qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation of the nature of the adverse health effects associated with biological, chemical and physical agents that may be present in food. For chemical agents, a dose-response assessment should be performed. For biological or physical agents, a dose-response assessment should be performed if the data are obtainable.

Dose-Response Assessment: The determination of the relationship between the magnitude of exposure (dose) to a chemical, biological or physical agent and the severity and/or frequency of associated adverse health effects (response).

Exposure Assessment: The qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation of the likely intake of biological, chemical, and physical agents via food as well as exposures from other sources if relevant.

Risk: A function of the probability of an adverse health effect and the severity of that effect, consequential to a hazard(s) in food.

Risk Analysis: A process consisting of three components: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication.

Risk Assessment: A scientifically based process consisting of the following steps: (i) hazard identification, (ii) hazard characterization, (iii) exposure assessment, and (iv) risk characterization.

Risk Assessment Policy: Documented guidelines on the choice of options and associated judgments for their application at appropriate decision points in the risk assessment such that the scientific integrity of the process is maintained.

Risk Characterization: The qualitative and/or quantitative estimation, including attendant uncertainties, of the probability of occurrence and severity of known or potential adverse health effects in a given population based on hazard identification, hazard characterization and exposure assessment.

Risk Communication: The interactive exchange of information and opinions throughout the risk analysis process concerning risk, related risk factors and risk perceptions, among risk assessors, risk managers, consumers, industry, the academic community and other interested parties, including the explanation of risk assessment findings and the basis of risk management decisions.

Risk Estimate: The quantitative estimation of risk resulting from risk characterization.

Risk Management: The process, distinct from risk assessment, of weighing policy alternatives, in consultation with all interested parties, considering risk assessment and other factors relevant for the health protection of consumers and for the promotion of fair trade practices, and, if needed, selecting appropriate prevention and control options.

Risk Profile: The description of the food safety problem and its context.

(1) The Commission decides, taking into account the “Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities and for the Establishment of Subsidiary Bodies,” to elaborate a Worldwide Codex Standard and also decides which subsidiary body or other body should undertake the work. A decision to elaborate a Worldwide Codex Standard may also be taken by subsidiary bodies of the Commission in accordance with the above-mentioned criteria, subject to subsequent approval by the Commission or its Executive Committee at the earliest possible opportunity. In the case of Codex Regional Standards, the Commission shall base its decision on the proposal of the majority of members belonging to a given region or group of countries submitted at a session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

(2) The Secretariat arranges for the preparation of a proposed draft standard. In the case of Maximum Limits for Residues of Pesticides or Veterinary Drugs, the Secretariat distributes the recommendations for maximum limits, when available from the Joint Meetings of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), or the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). In the cases of milk and milk products or individual standards for cheeses, the Secretariat distributes the recommendations of the International Dairy Federation (IDF).

(3) The proposed draft standard is sent to members of the Commission and interested international organizations for comment on all aspects including possible implications of the proposed draft standard for their economic interests.

The comments received are sent by the Secretariat to the subsidiary body or other body concerned which has the power to consider such comments and to amend the proposed draft standard.

The proposed draft standard is submitted through the Secretariat to the Commission or to the Executive Committee with a view to its adoption as a draft standard. When making any decision at this step, the Commission or the Executive Committee will give due consideration to any comments that may be submitted by any of its members regarding the implications which the proposed draft standard or any provisions of the standard may have for their economic interests. In the case of Regional Standards, all members of the Commission may present their comments, take part in the debate and propose amendments, but only the majority of the Members of the region or group of countries concerned attending the session can decide to amend or adopt the draft. When making any decisions at this step, the members of the region or group of countries concerned will give due consideration to any comments that may be submitted by any of the members of the Commission regarding the implications which the proposed draft standard or any provisions of the proposed draft standard may have for their economic interests.

The draft standard is sent by the Secretariat to all members and interested international organizations for comment on all aspects, including possible implications of the draft standard for their economic interests.

The comments received are sent by the Secretariat to the subsidiary body or other body concerned, which has the power to consider such comments and amend the draft standard.

The draft standard is submitted through the Secretariat to the Commission together with any written proposals received from members and interested international organizations for amendments at Step 8 with a view to its adoption as a Codex Standard. In the case of Regional standards, all members and interested international organizations may present their comments, take part in the debate and propose amendments but only the majority of members of the region or group of countries concerned attending the session can decide to amend and adopt the draft.

(1) The Commission or the Executive Committee between Commission sessions, on the basis of a two-thirds majority of votes cast, taking into account the “Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities and for the Establishment of Subsidiary Bodies”, shall identify those standards which shall be the subject of an accelerated elaboration process. The identification of such standards may also be made by subsidiary bodies of the Commission, on the basis of a two-thirds majority of votes cast, subject to confirmation at the earliest opportunity by the Commission or its Executive Committee by a two-thirds majority of votes cast.

(2) The Secretariat arranges for the preparation of a proposed draft standard. In the case of Maximum Limits for Residues of Pesticides or Veterinary Drugs, the Secretariat distributes the recommendations for maximum limits, when available from the Joint Meetings of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), or the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). In the cases of milk and milk products or individual standards for cheeses, the Secretariat distributes the recommendations of the International Dairy Federation (IDF).

(3) The proposed draft standard is sent to Members of the Commission and interested international organizations for comment on all aspects including possible implications of the proposed draft standard for their economic interests. When standards are subject to an accelerated procedure, this fact shall be notified to the Members of the Commission and the interested international organizations.

The comments received are sent by the Secretariat to the subsidiary body or other body concerned which has the power to consider such comments and to amend the proposed draft standard.

In the case of standards identified as being subject to an accelerated elaboration procedure, the draft standard is submitted through the Secretariat to the Commission together with any written proposals received from Members and interested international organizations for amendments with a view to its adoption as a Codex standard. In taking any decision at this step, the Commission will give due consideration to any comments that may be submitted by any of its Members regarding the implications which the proposed draft standard or any provisions thereof may have for their economic interests.

Codex standards contain requirements for food aimed at ensuring for the consumer a sound, wholesome food product free from adulteration, and correctly labelled. A Codex standard for any food or foods should be drawn up in accordance with the Format for Codex Commodity Standards and contain, as appropriate, the criteria listed therein.

The format is also intended for use as a guide by the subsidiary bodies of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in presenting their standards, with the object of achieving, as far as possible, a uniform presentation of commodity standards. The format also indicates the statements which should be included in standards as appropriate under the relevant headings of the standard. The sections of the format required to be completed for a standard are only those provisions that are appropriate to an international standard for the food in question.

The name of the standard should be clear and as concise as possible. It should usually be the common name by which the food covered by the standard is known or, if more than one food is dealt with in the standard, by a generic name covering them all. If a fully informative title is inordinately long, a subtitle could be added.

This section should contain a clear, concise statement as to the food or foods to which the standard is applicable unless the name of the standard clearly and concisely identifies the food or foods. A generic standard covering more than one specific product should clearly identify the specific products to which the standard applies.

This section should contain a definition of the product or products with an indication, where appropriate, of the raw materials from which the product or products are derived and any necessary references to processes of manufacture. The description may also include references to types and styles of product and to type of pack. The description may also include additional definitions when these additional definitions are required to clarify the meaning of the standard.

This section should contain all quantitative and other requirements as to composition including, where necessary, identity characteristics, provisions on packing media and requirements as to compulsory and optional ingredients. It should also include quality factors that are essential for the designation, definition, or composition of the product concerned. Such factors could include the quality of the raw material, with the object of protecting the health of the consumer, provisions on taste, odor, color, and texture which may be apprehended by the senses, and basic quality criteria for the finished products, with the object of preventing fraud. This section may refer to tolerances for defects, such as blemishes or imperfect material, but this information should be contained in appendix to the standard or in another advisory text.

This section should contain the names of the additives permitted and, where appropriate, the maximum amount permitted in the food. It should be prepared in accordance with guidance given on page 84 of the Codex Procedural Manual and may take the following form:

A tabulation should then follow, viz.:

(a) Pesticide Residues : This section should include, by reference, any levels for pesticide residues that have been established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues for the product concerned.

(b) Other Contaminants : In addition, this section should contain the names of other contaminants and where appropriate the maximum level permitted in the food, and the text to appear in the standard may take the following form:

A tabulation should then follow, viz.:

Any specific mandatory hygiene provisions considered necessary should be included in this section. They should be prepared in accordance with the guidance given in the Codex Procedural Manual. Reference should also be made to applicable codes of hygienic practice. Any parts of such codes, including in particular any end-product specifications, should be set out in the standard, if it is considered necessary that they should be made mandatory. The following statement should also appear:

This section should include all provisions, other than labelling provisions, relating to weights and measures, e.g. , where appropriate, fill of container, weight, measure or count of units determined by an appropriate method of sampling and analysis. Weights and measures should be expressed in S.I. units. In the case of standards which include provisions for the sale of products in standardized amounts, e.g. multiples of 100 grams, S.I. units should be used, but this would not preclude additional statements in the standards of these standardized amounts in approximately similar amounts in other systems of weights and measures.

This section should include all the labelling provisions contained in the standard and should be prepared in accordance with the guidance given in the Codex Procedural Manual. Provisions should be included by reference to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. The section may also contain provisions which are exemptions from, additions to, or which are necessary for the interpretation of the General Standard in respect of the product concerned provided that these can be justified fully. The following statement should also appear:

This section should include, either specifically or by reference, all methods of analysis and sampling considered necessary and should be prepared in accordance with the guidance given in the Codex Procedural Manual. If two or more methods have been proved to be equivalent by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling, these could be regarded as alternatives and included in this section either specifically or by reference. The following statement should also appear:

Agenda topics include review and approval of project proposals, and an open public forum. The meeting is open to the public.

On May 1, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan. See Antidumping or Counterveiling Duty Order, Finding or Suspended Investigation, Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 68 FR at 23281. On July 1, 2003, in response to a request from petitioners, Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation, IPSCO Tubulars Inc. and Wheatland Tube Company, the Department published in the Federal Register our notice of initiation of this administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Counterveiling Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 68 FR at 39055. Petitioners requested the Department to conduct an administrative review of entries of subject merchandise made by Yieh Hsing. The period of review covers May 1, 2002 to April 30, 2003.

On August 7, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Yieh Hsing. Yieh Hsing submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire on September 11, 2003, its response to sections B and C on September 25, 2003, and its response to section D on October 2, 2003. On October 17, 2003, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for section A, to which Yieh Hsing responded on November 12, 2003. On November 17, 2003, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for section D of the questionnaire; Yieh Hsing submitted its response on December 8, 2003. On December 3, 2003, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections B and C of the questionnaire; Yieh Hsing filed its response on January 5, 2004. On January 16, 2004, the Department issued another supplemental questionnaire, to which Yieh Hsing responded on February 17, 2004. We verified Yieh Hsing's submitted data as discussed below in the “Verification” section of this notice.

Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the normal time frame, on December 16, 2003 the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results of the administrative review to May 30, 2004. See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan: Notice of Extension of Time Limits, 68 FR at 69987 (December 16, 2003). Due to the unexpected emergency closure of the main Commerce building on Tuesday, June, 1, 2004, the Department has tolled the deadline for these preliminary results by one day to June 2, 2004.

The period of review (POR) is from May 1, 2002 to April 30, 2003.

Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes. The Department defines such merchandise as welded carbon steel pipes and tubes of circular cross section, with walls not thinner than 0.065 inch and 0.375 inch or more but not over 4 1/2 inches in outside diameter. These products are commonly referred to in the industry as “standard pipe” and are produced to various American Society for Testing Materials specifications, most notably A-53, A-120 and A-135. Standard pipe is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and 7306.30.5055. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we verified the cost and sales information provided by Yieh Hsing using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of production and warehousing facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public and proprietary versions of the verification reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit of the Department. See “Verification of Yieh Hsing Sales and Cost Responses” dated May 11, 2004.

In Hot-Rolled Steel from Taiwan, the Department found that China Steel and Yieh Loong were affiliated with Yieh Hsing and Yieh Phui ( See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Taiwan 66 FR 49618 (September 28, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1 and 2), and petitioners indicate that many of the determinative facts of that case continue into the present review. Petitioners also noted that the Court of International Trade upheld this decision on January 26, 2004 in China Steel Corporation and Yieh Loong v. United States (China Steel), Slip Op. 04-6). Petitioners contend that this decision compels a finding that China Steel and Yieh Loong are affiliated with Yieh Hsing.

Petitioners asked the Department to acquire information regarding ownership, common board members and any sales transactions between Yieh Hsing, China Steel and Yieh Loong. Yieh Hsing responded to these requests in their November 12, 2003, December 8, 2003 and February 17, 2004 Supplemental Questionnaire Responses. In the investigation of Hot Rolled Steel from Taiwan, the Department determined that Yieh Hsing was affiliated with Yieh Loong and China Steel since Yieh Loong and Yieh Hsing shared a common chairman and maintained minority cross ownership between one another ( see Memorandum to the File “Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Taiwan-CSC, Yieh Loong and affiliated resellers” (April 19, 2001)).

From the information on the record provided at verification and in Yieh Hsing's questionnaire responses in the current review, we found that the previous common chairman had stepped down from both Yieh Hsing and Yieh Loong prior to this period of review and that Yieh Loong maintained only an insignificant percentage of ownership of Yieh Hsing. Because the determinative facts in Hot Rolled Steel from Taiwan involving Yieh Hsing and Yieh Loong do not exist in the current review, we find no basis for affiliation between Yieh Hsing and Yieh Loong and Yieh Hsing and China Steel. Accordingly, we need not address collapsing or the issues associated with collapsing.

To determine whether sales of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan to the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared the export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs of the foreign like product where there were sales at prices above the cost of production (COP), as discussed in the “Cost of Production” section below.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all products produced by the respondent, covered by the descriptions in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan.

We have relied on the following five criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to home market sales of the foreign like product: pipe specification (SPECH/U), pipe diameter (DIAMH/U), wall thickness (WALLH/U), whether black or galvanized (COATH/U) and whether plain-end or threaded and coupled (ENDH/U). Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the five characteristics reported by Yieh Hsing.

Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).” We calculated the price of U.S. sales based on EP for the subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign warehousing, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, cargo loading and marine insurance.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP. For EP, the LOT is the level of the starting sale price, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. When NV is based on CV, we derive the level of trade from the sales upon which selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit are based. To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade than EP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the home market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and home market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. In identifying LOTs for U.S. EP sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price after any adjustments under section 772(c) of the Tariff Act.

In implementing these principles in this administrative review, we obtained information from Yieh Hsing about the marketing stages involved in its reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by Yieh Hsing and the level to which each selling activity was performed for each channel of distribution. In the home market, Yieh Hsing sold to distributors and end-users while in the U.S. market, Yieh Hsing sold to trading companies. Yieh Hsing did not claim a level of trade adjustment and noted the overall sales process was similar for all sales to both markets. We did not find a significant variation in selling functions provided to home market and U.S. customers; thus, we have determined there is only one level of trade for Yieh Hsing's sales to all markets.

To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e. , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Because the respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. See Yieh Hsing's November 12, 2003 response at Attachment 5.

Yieh Hsing reported that it made a small portion of sales in the home market to affiliated parties. Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-length prices are excluded from our analysis because we consider them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102(b). Prior to performing the arm's-length test, we aggregated the applicable customer codes reported for individual affiliates in order to treat them as single entities. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69194 (November 15, 2002) ( Modification to Affiliated Party Sales ). To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all direct selling expenses, discounts and rebates, movement charges, and packing. Where prices to the affiliated party were, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of identical or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See Modification to Affiliated Party Sales at 69187-88. In accordance with the Department's practice, we only included in our margin analysis those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's length.

Because we disregarded sales of certain products made at prices below the cost of production (COP) in the previous review of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan ( see Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 60613 (October 12, 2000)), we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Yieh Hsing made sales of the foreign like product at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by Yieh Hsing.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of Yieh Hsing's material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling expenses, general and administrative (GNA) expenses, interest expenses and packing costs. With one exception, the Department relied on the COP data reported by Yieh Hsing. We revised the overall GNA expense total to recalculate the GNA ratio used for COP purposes by deducting a revised figure for commercial paper handling charge and adding certain unreported depreciation expenses ( see the Department's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum dated June 2, 2004).

In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) They were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Tariff Act, and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act.

To determine whether Yieh Hsing made sales at prices below COP, we compared the product-specific COP figures to home market prices net of discounts and rebates and any applicable movement charges of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act.

Our cost test for Yieh Hsing revealed that for home market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales volume (by weight) of those models were at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sale observations in our analysis and used them in the calculation of NV. Our cost test also indicated that for certain models, 20 percent or more of the home market sales volume (by weight) were sold at prices below COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales in the calculation of NV ( see Preliminary Analysis Memo).

In accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of Yieh Hsing's material and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the actual weighted-average home market direct and those indirect selling expenses adjusted based on findings at verification.

We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers we determined to be at arm's length for home market sale observations that passed the cost test. We adjusted gross unit price for rebates and made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and packing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. We made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale which included home market and U.S. imputed credit expenses, bank charges, and other direct selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act. The Department relied on the sales database figures reported by Yieh Hsing, except as noted below:

Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides: If an interested party (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administrating authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and the manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.

Moreover, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides that: If the administering authority finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority, the administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.

At verification of Yieh Hsing's sales and cost responses, the Department found certain expenses identified in Yieh Hsing's “commission expense” accounting ledger, with references to various U.S. commercial invoice numbers for particular U.S. customers. Yieh Hsing had not identified these sales-specific expenses in its questionnaire responses, and the full nature and extent of these selling expenses is unclear due to Yieh Hsing's failure to report them to the Department.

Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act, we have determined that Yieh Hsing's failure to report certain direct selling expenses relating to sales of subject merchandise to the United States warrants the use of facts otherwise available. Because the Department finds that Yieh Hsing failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability in complying with the Department's requests for reporting of all expenses associated with sales of subject merchandise to the United States, the Department is using an inference that is adverse to Yieh Hsing ( see Preliminary Analysis Memo for explanation of the facts available selected).

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the period May 1, 2002 through April 30, 2003, to be as follows:

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication 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 directly to CBP upon completion of the review. For the preliminary results, we calculated an importer-specific assessment rates based upon importer information provided by Yieh Hsing in its January 6, 2004 response and its most recent U.S. sales database. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:

(1) The cash deposit rates for the company reviewed will be the rate established in the final results of review;

(2) For any previously reviewed or investigated company not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3) If the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or previous review, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate of 9.70 percent from the investigation; see Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 49 FR 9931-01 (March 16, 1984).

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

On September 7, 2001, the Department published an antidumping duty order on rebar from Korea. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People's Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine, 66 FR 46777 (September 7, 2001). On September 2, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request the second administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 68 FR 52181 (September 2, 2003). On September 30, 2003, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the petitioner requested an administrative review of six manufacturers/exporters of rebar from Korea: Dongil, Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. Ltd. (“DSM”), Hanbo, INI Steel, Korea Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (“KISCO”), and Kosteel Co., Ltd. (“Kosteel”). On October 24, 2003, the Department published the notice of initiation of this administrative review, covering the period September 1, 2002, through August 31, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 60910 (October 24, 2003).

On October 22, 2003, the Department issued the antidumping questionnaire to each of the six manufacturers/exporters listed above. On November 12, 2003, DSM and KISCO notified the Department that they had no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On December 3, 2003, Kosteel also notified the Department that it had no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Dongil, Hanbo, and INI Steel failed to respond to the Department's November 12, 2003, questionnaire.

On May 6, 2004, the Department notified interested parties that we intend to rescind this administrative review with respect to those manufacturers/exporters that had no sales or shipments during the POR. See Memorandum to the File from Richard Johns, International Trade Compliance Analyst, “Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Korea for the Period of Review September 1, 2002 through August 31, 2003,” dated May 6, 2004. We invited interested parties to comment on our intention to rescind the review with respect to companies for which there is no evidence of sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

On May 11, 2004, the Department sent a letter to Dongil, Hanbo, and INI Steel informing these companies that we did not receive a response from them to the antidumping questionnaire. In the letter, the Department stated that, if the reason as to why they did not respond to the antidumping questionnaire is that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, they should inform the Department of this fact; otherwise, the Department may conclude that these companies decided not to cooperate with the Department's review. In response, on May 13, 2004, INI Steel reported that it had no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Dongil and Hanbo did not respond to the Department's May 11, 2004, letter.

On May 12, 2004, the Department released to interested parties the results of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data query for shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. See Memorandum to the File from Richard Johns, International Trade Compliance Analyst, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data Query Results,” dated May 12, 2004. We invited interested parties to comment on the results of this data query. We received the petitioner's comments regarding the Department's May 6, 2004, and May 12, 2004, memoranda on May 20, 2004. In its comments, the petitioner did not provide any evidence of sales or shipments from DSM, INI Steel, KISCO, or Kosteel. The petitioner recommends that the Department apply total AFA against Dongil and Hanbo because these companies failed to provide the information requested by the Department's October 22, 2003, antidumping questionnaire and May 11, 2004, letter. The petitioner also recommends that the Department not rescind the review with respect to DSM, INI Steel, KISCO, and Kosteel because the Department's query of CBP data covered only the months of the POR. According to the petitioner, limiting the data query to only the months of the POR fails to capture sales made during the POR which were based upon entries made prior to the POR, in addition to sales made during the POR which were based upon entries made after the POR. To account for these potential problems, the petitioner urges the Department to request further information from DSM, INI Steel, KISCO, and Kosteel regarding the date of sale used by these companies when they informed the Department that they had no sales during the POR.

Due to the unexpected emergency closure of the main Commerce building on Tuesday, June, 1, 2004, the Department has tolled the deadline for these preliminary/final results by one day to June 2, 2004.

As noted above, DSM, INI Steel, KISCO, and Kosteel notified the Department that they had no sales or shipments of subject merchandise in the United States during the POR. The Department obtained data from CBP that supported their claims of no entries during the POR. In addition, no interested party provided evidence of sales or shipments of subject merchandise from DSM, INI Steel, KISCO, or Kosteel during the POR. Furthermore, with respect to the arguments raised by the petitioner in its comments on our intent to rescind this review in part, we note that the antidumping questionnaire issued to the six respondents contains clear instructions on how to identify the universe of sales that should be reported in this POR. Accordingly, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to DSM, INI Steel, KISCO, and Kosteel. Because Dongil and Hanbo failed to respond to the Department's October 22, 2003, questionnaire and May 11, 2004, letter, we preliminarily find that the application of total AFA is warranted in this case.

The product covered by this administrative review is all rebar sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item number 7214.20.00 or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds ( i.e. , non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or coating. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), provides that if any interested party: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form or manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping investigation; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in making its determination.

Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate.

Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed “deficient” under section 782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission * * *, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” See also Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994).

The evidence on the record of this review establishes that, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of total facts available (“FA”) is warranted in determining the dumping margin for U.S. sales of rebar made by Dongil and Hanbo because these two companies failed to provide requested information. As stated above, on October 22, 2003, the Department issued the antidumping questionnaire to six manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise. Four companies ultimately advised the Department that they did not have shipments or sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Dongil and Hanbo failed to respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. On May 11, 2004, we informed Dongil and Hanbo that, because they failed to respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire, and had not informed the Department as to whether they had sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we may use AFA to determine their dumping margins. Dongil and Hanbo did not respond to the Department's May 11, 2004, letter. Based on the data obtained from CBP, the Department cannot conclude that these companies had no sales to the United States during the POR. See Memorandum to the File from Richard Johns, International Trade Compliance Analyst, “Entry Data With Respect to Dongil and Hanbo,” dated June 1, 2004.

Because Dongil and Hanbo failed to provide the necessary information requested by the Department, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we must establish the margins for these companies based on the facts otherwise available.

In selecting from among the facts otherwise 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.” Section 776(b) of the Act goes on to note that an adverse inference 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.

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 SAA at 870; Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (CIT 1998); Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (CIT 1999). 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 the “failure to act to the best of its ability” 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, i.e. , 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 AFA, although it indicated that inadequate responses to agency inquiries “would suffice” as well. Id.

To examine whether the respondent “cooperated” by “acting to the best of its ability” under section 776(b) of the Act, the Department considers, inter alia, the accuracy and completeness of submitted information and whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997).

The record shows that Dongil and Hanbo failed to cooperate to the best of their ability, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. In reviewing the evidence on the record, the Department finds that Dongil and Hanbo failed to provide requested information. Moreover, these companies failed to offer any explanation for their failure to respond to our antidumping questionnaire or May 11, 2004, letter. As a general matter, it is reasonable for the Department to assume that these companies possessed the records necessary to participate in this review; however, by not supplying the information the Department requested, these companies failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. As these companies have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability, we are applying an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As AFA for Dongil and Hanbo, we have used a rate of 102.28 percent, which is the highest margin from any segment of the proceeding. Specifically, this rate was the highest margin alleged for any Korean company in the petition and is the rate used as AFA for Hanbo in the final determination of the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From the Republic of Korea, 66 FR 33526 (June 22, 2001).

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as FA. Secondary information is defined as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See SAA accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994) and 19 CFR 351.308(d).

The SAA further provides that the term “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. Thus, to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. During the LTFV investigation, we examined the reliability of the 102.28 percent rate selected as AFA for Hanbo and found it to be reliable. See Memorandum to Troy H. Cribb, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement, Group II, “The Use of Facts Available for Hanbo Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., and Corroboration of Secondary Information,” dated January 16, 2001, and placed on the record of this review concurrently with these preliminary results. We have re-examined the information used as FA in the LTFV investigation and we consider it reliable, for purposes of this second administrative review.

As to the relevance of the AFA rate, the CIT has stated that Congress “intended for an adverse facts available rate to be a reasonably accurate estimate of the respondent's actual rate, albeit with some built-in increase intended as a deterrent to non-compliance.” F.Lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A., v. U.S., 216 F.3d 1027, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Department considers 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 selected margin and determine an appropriate margin. See e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996).

With respect to the rate selected for Dongil and Hanbo, we note that in determining the relevant AFA rate, the Department assumes that if an uncooperative respondent could have demonstrated that its dumping margin is lower than the highest prior margin, it would have provided information showing the margin to be less. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190-91 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ Rhone Poulenc ”). Given Dongil and Hanbo's failure to cooperate to the best of their respective abilities in the instant administrative review, we have no reason to believe that the dumping margins for their sales of subject merchandise would be any less than the current “all others” rate of 22.89 percent for Dongil, which does not have its own individual rate, or Hanbo's current cash deposit rate of 102.28 percent. In Rhone Poulenc, the CAFC found that the presumption that, “the highest prior margin was the best information of current margins” was a permissible interpretation of 19 U.S.C. 1677e(c). See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190. In upholding this presumption, the CAFC cited the rationale underlying the adverse inference rule, that the presumption “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” Id. In other proceedings, the Department has used the highest margin as AFA. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003). In fact, the Department used the 102.28 percent rate as AFA in the final determination of the LTFV investigation with respect to Hanbo. Therefore, Dongil and Hanbo had notice that the 102.28 percent rate may be used as the AFA rate that would be applied for their failure to cooperate. Consequently, in keeping with Rhone Poulenc, we consider the 102.28 percent rate to be the most probative evidence of current margins for Dongil and Hanbo because, if it were not so, these two manufacturers/exporters, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less. Therefore, we consider the 102.28 percent rate to be relevant.

Accordingly, we have determined that the rates selected as AFA are both reliable and relevant. Therefore, we have corroborated these rates in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period September 1, 2002, through August 31, 2003:

According to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose any calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of the preliminary notice. However, in the instant review, the Department did not perform any calculations because all margins result from the application of total AFA. Therefore, no calculations will be disclosed in this case.

An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). We will issue a memorandum identifying the date of a hearing, if one is requested. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the public version of those comments. Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. The assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and future deposits of estimated duties shall be based on the final results of this review.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. According to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department normally will calculate an assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise covered by the review by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise for normal customs duty purposes. In the instant review, for the respondents receiving dumping rates based upon AFA, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries according to the AFA ad valorem rate. For the respondents being rescinded from this review, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP within fifteen days of publication of the final results of review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of rebar from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Dongil and Hanbo will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent review period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 22.89 percent, the “all others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From the Republic of Korea, 66 FR 33526 (June 22, 2001). These required cash deposit rates shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On October 31, 2003, Villa Marina Yacht Harbour, Inc. (Appellant) filed a notice of appeal with the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) pursuant to section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., and the Department of Commerce's implementing regulations, 15 CFR part 930, subpart H. The appeal is taken from an objection by the Puerto Rico Planning Board (PRPB) to Appellant's consistency certification for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for a marina expansion. This project is located in Sardinera Bay, Sardinera Ward, Fajardo, Puerto Rico.

The CZMA provides that a timely objection by a State precludes any Federal agency from issuing licenses or permits for the activity unless the Secretary finds that the activity is either “consistent with the objectives” of the CZMA (Ground I) or “necessary in the interest of national security” (Ground II). Section 307(c)(3)(A). To make such a determination, the Secretary must find that the proposed project satisfies the requirements of 15 CFR 930.121 or 930.122.

The Appellant requests that the Secretary override the State's consistency objections based on Ground I. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “consistent with the objectives” of the CZMA, the Secretary must find that: (1) The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in section 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner; (2) the adverse effects of the proposed activity do not outweigh its contribution to the national interest, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and (3) no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with enforceable policies of Puerto Rico's management program. 15 CFR 930.121.

Written public comments are invited on any of the issues that the Secretary must consider in deciding this appeal. Comments must be received within 30 days of the publication of this notice, and may be submitted by e-mail to villamarina.comments@noaa.gov. Comments may also be sent to Molly Holt, Attorney-Adviser, NOAA Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments will be made available to the Appellant and the State; they will also be posted on a Department of Commerce Web site identified below.

NOAA intends to provide the public with access to all materials and related documents comprising the appeal record via the Internet at http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.htm and, during business hours, at the NOAA Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services. In addition, copies of public filings by the parties will be available for review at the offices of the Puerto Rico Planning Board.

The Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee with its Advisory Panel will meet from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday, June 21 and continue on Tuesday, June 22 from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. On Wednesday, June 23, Council will meet from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. On Thursday, June 24, the Executive Committee will meet from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. The Research Set-Aside Committee will meet from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Council will meet from 10 a.m. until approximately 2 p.m.

Agenda items for the Council's committees and the Council itself are: Review the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Monitoring Committee's recommendations and develop 2005 quota levels and associated management measures; Discuss status of the public hearing document for Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish Plan and develop and adopt preferred alternatives for the following: Extending the moratorium on entry to the commercial Illex fishery; Allowing for specification of management measures for multiple years; Allowing for the transit of vessels through the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with Illex caught outside of the U.S. EEZ; Revising the current overfishing definition for Loligo squid; Implementing measures to reduce discards; Identifying essential fish habitat for Loligo squid eggs; Review Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish Committee's recommendations and develop and adopt 2005 quota specifications and associated management measures; Discuss implication for clam industry of NMFS certification of a new vessel monitoring system; Develop and adopt multi-year quota specifications and associated management measures for surfclams and ocean quahogs; Address establishment of a fishery research trust fund using proceeds from sale of research set-aside quota; Address use of public workshop to aid in developing research set-aside priorities; Discuss use of pre-proposals prior to technical review; Receive a NMFS presentation on Issues and Options regarding Amendment 2 to the NMFS Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks Fishery Management Plan; the Council will also receive and discuss committee and organizational reports including the New England Council's report regarding possible actions on herring, groundfish, monkfish, red crab, scallops, skates, and whiting; the South Atlantic Council's report; Highly Migratory Species (HMS) issues; and act on any new and/or continuing business.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, these issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final actions to address such emergencies.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Debbie Donnangelo at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The workshop will be held on Monday, June 21, 2004, from 8 a.m to 5 p.m.; Tuesday, June 22, 2004, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Wednesday, June 23, 2004, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Thursday, June 24, 2004, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Friday, June 25, from 8 a.m. until business for the day is completed.

The purpose of the CPS STAR Panel meeting is to review draft stock assessment documents and any other pertinent information for Pacific mackerel and Pacific sardine, work with the Stock Assessment Teams to make necessary revisions, and produce a STAR Panel report for use by the Council family and other interested persons for developing management recommendations for the 2005 Pacific sardine fishery and 2005/06 Pacific mackerel fishery.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this notice may arise during the STAR Panel, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Formal action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least five days prior to the meeting date.

Entry to the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) requires visitors to register with the front office each morning. A visitor's badge, which must be worn while at (SWFSC), will be issued to non-Federal employees participating in the meeting. Since parking is at a premium at the SWFSC, car pooling, and mass transit are encouraged.

The Corporation for National and Community Service supports programs that provide opportunities for individuals who want to become involved in national service. The service opportunities cover a wide range of activities over varying periods of time. Upon successfully completing an agreed-upon term of service in an approved AmeriCorps program, a national and community service participant—an AmeriCorps member—receives an “education award”. This award is an amount of money set aside in the member's name in the National Service Trust Fund. The education award can be used to make payments towards qualified student loans or pay for educational expenses at qualified post-secondary institutions and approved school-to-work opportunities programs. Members have seven years in which to draw against any unused balance.

The National Service Trust is the office within the Corporation that administers the education award program. This involves tracking the service for all AmeriCorps members, ensuring that certain requirements of the Corporation's enabling legislation are met, and processing school and loan payments that the members authorize.

After an AmeriCorps member completes a period of national and community service, the individual receives an education award that can be used to pay against qualified student loans or pay for current post secondary educational expenses. The Voucher and Payment Request Form is the document that a member uses to access his or her account in the National Service Trust.

The form serves three purposes: (1) The AmeriCorps member uses it to request and authorize a specific payment to be made from his or her account, (2) the school or loan company uses it to indicate the amount for which the individual is eligible, and (3) the school or loan company and member both certify that the payment meets various legislative requirements. When the Corporation receives a voucher, it is processed and the U.S. Treasury issues a payment to the loan holder or school on behalf of the AmeriCorps member.

The form was first designed and some variation of it has been in use since the summer of 1994. We are proposing revisions to clarify certain sections of the existing form and to include terminology included in recent legislative changes. The changes impose no additional burden. The legislated change in terminology modifies the definition of loans “made directly to the student * * *” to loans “made, insured, or guaranteed directly to the student * * *”

Modifications to Section A clarify instructions to the member on filling out that portion of the Voucher, especially the dollar amount the member requests and authorizes. Similarly, modifications to Section B clarify information provided to loan holders and educational institutions, particularly in regard to stating the dollar amount for educational expenses.

The Corporation seeks to continue using this particular form, albeit in a revised version. The current form is due to expire June 30, 2004.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Voucher and Payment Request Form.

OMB Number: 3045-0014.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Individuals who have completed a term of national service who wish to access their education award accounts.

Total Respondents: 69,000 responses annually (estimated annual average over the next three years).

Frequency: Experience has shown that some members may not ever use the education award and others use it several times a year).

Average Time Per Response: Total of 5 minutes (one half minute for the AmeriCorps member's section and 4 1/2 minutes for the school or lender).

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 5,750 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

The Health Program Analysis and Evaluation Directorate (HPAE) under the authority of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)/TRICARE Management Activity will undertake an evaluation of the DoD's TRICARE Standard healthcare option. HPAE will collect and analyze data that are necessary to meet the requirements outlined in section 723 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004.

Activities include the collection and analyses of data obtained confidentially from civilian physicians (M.D.s & D.O.s) within U.S. TRICARE market areas. Specifically, telephone surveys of civilian providers will be conducted in the TRICARE market areas to determine how many healthcare providers are accepting new patients under TRICARE Standard in each market area. The telephone surveys will be conducted at least 20 TRICARE market areas in the United States each fiscal year until all market areas in the United States have been surveyed. In prioritizing the order in which these market areas will be surveyed, representatives of TRICARE beneficiaries will be consulted in identifying locations that had historical evidence of access-to-care problems under TRICARE Standard. These areas will receive priority in surveying.

Information will be collected telephonically to determine the number of healthcare providers that currently accept TRICARE Standard beneficiaries as patients under TRICARE Standard in each market area. Providers will also be asked if they would accept TRICARE Standard beneficiaries as new patients under TRICARE Standard. Analyses and reports will include all legislative requirements.

Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.4, Contract Pricing, and related clause in DFARS 252.215; OMB Control Number 0704-0232.

Needs and Uses: DoD contracting officers need this information to negotiate an equitable adjustment in the total amount paid or to be paid under a fixed-price redeterminable or fixed-price incentive contract, to reflect final subcontract prices; and to determine if a contractor has an adequate system for generating cost estimates, and monitor correction of any deficiencies.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Annual Burden Hours: 5,350.

Number of Respondents: 310.

Responses Per Respondent: .45.

Annual Responses: 141.

Average Burden Per Response: 37.94 hours.

Frequency: On occasion.

DFARS 215.404-3(a)(iv)(B) requires that, upon establishment of firm prices for each subcontract listed in a repricing modification, the contractor shall submit the subcontractor's costs incurred in performing the subcontract and the final subcontract price. This requirement applies to the pricing of a fixed-price redeterminable or fixed- price incentive contract that includes subcontracts placed on the same basis for which the contractor has not yet established final prices, if cost or pricing data is inadequate to determine whether the amounts are reasonable, but circumstances require prompt negotiation.

DFARS 215.407-5, Estimating systems, and the clause at 252.215-7002, Cost Estimating System Requirements, require that certain large business contractors—

• Establish an adequate cost estimating system and disclose the estimating system to the administrative contracting officer (ACO) in writing;

• Maintain the estimating system and disclose significant changes in the system to the ACO on a timely basis; and

• Respond in writing to written reports from the Government that identify deficiencies in the estimating system.

The Defense Logistics Agency notices for systems of records 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 report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on May 28, 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 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

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: New.

Title: Title III Biennial Evaluation Report Required of State Education Agencies Regarding Activities Under the NCLB Act of 2001.

Frequency: Biennially.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 52.

 Burden Hours: 260.

Abstract: State Directors of Title III of the No Child Left Behind (Elementary and Secondary Education) Act—Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students—are required to transmit their State Formula Grant Biennial Evaluation Report to the Secretary of Education every two years. Approval is being requested for the form on which to submit that report.

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 2479. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. 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 Sheila Carey at her e-mail address Sheila.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: Extension.

Title: Adult Education and Family Literacy Act State Plan (PL 105-220).

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 59.

 Burden Hours: 2,655.

Abstract: It is unlikely that Congress will pass a reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) this year. Therefore, the enclosed Policy Memorandum is designed to advise states about how to continue their adult education program under section 422 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) (20 U.S.C. 1226 (a)).

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 2555. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. 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 Sheila Carey at her e-mail address Sheila.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.