The committee will meet jointly with the Lake Tahoe Basin Executives Committee. Items to be covered on the agenda include: (1) Report on transportation briefing with Christine Johnson of the FHWA; (2) update on Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA); (3) budget subcommittee recommendations on SNPLMA projects; (4) public comment; and (5) LTFAC recommendations on SNPLMA projects. All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend at the above address. Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the open public comment period at the meeting or by filing written statements with the secretary for the Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address stated above.

The meeting is open to the public. Public comment opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

The business meeting on March 31, 2004, begins at 1 p.m. at the Roseburg Bureau of Land Management Office, 777 NW. Garden Valley Blvd, Roseburg, OR. Agenda topics will include: (1) Review and adopt previous meetings minutes, (2) review and recommend projects to be funded to replace a cancelled 2004 project, and (3) public forum at 1:45 p.m.

On April 4, 2002, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on automotive replacement glass (“ARG”) windshields from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China , 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002). On April 7, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ARG windshields from the PRC for the period September 19, 2001 through March 31, 2003. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 68 FR 16761 (April 7, 2003). On April 30, 2003, the Department received a letter on behalf of Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (“Shenzhen CSG”) requesting an administrative review of its sales and entries of subject merchandise. In its request, Shenzhen CSG indicated that it had undergone a name change, and that it had formerly been known as Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd. (“Shenzhen Benxun”). Shenzhen Benxun was a respondent in the original investigation of this case. The request for review did not include a request for a changed circumstance review to determine whether Shenzhen CSG is in fact a successor in interest to Shenzhen Benxun. Further, the Department did not advise Shenzhen CSG or Shenzhen Benxun that a successor in interest determination must be made before Shenzhen CSG would be entitled to Shenzhen Benxun's cash deposit rate. On May 21, 2003, in response to timely requests from respondents subject to the order on ARG windshields from the PRC, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review of sales by ten respondents, including “Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd.)” of ARG windshields from the PRC for the period September 19, 2001 through March 31, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 68 FR 27781 (May 21, 2003) (“Initiation Notice”).

On June 3, 2003, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the respondents, including “Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd.)”. On July 8, 2003, we received a letter from “Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd.)” withdrawing its request for an administrative review of sales and entries of subject merchandise exported by it and covered by the antidumping duty order on ARG windshields from the PRC. On September 8, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of partial rescission of the administrative review on ARG windshields from the PRC, which included a rescission of the administrative review of sales and entries from “Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd.)”. On December 29, 2003, the Department instructed Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) to liquidate entries from Shenzhen Benxun at its cash deposit rate of 9.84%, but to liquidate entries from Shenzhen CSG at the China-wide rate of 124.5% because the Department never had an opportunity to determine whether Shenzhen CSG is a successor in interest to Shenzhen Benxun. On January 12, 2004, the Department received a letter on behalf of “Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd.)” requesting that the Department amend instructions sent to Customs that direct Customs to liquidate all of Shenzhen CSG's entries at the China wide-rate. Shenzhen CSG asserts that Shenzhen Benxun changed its name to Shenzhen CSG and that entries from Shenzhen CSG should be entitled to Shenzhen Benxun's cash deposit rate.

The products covered by this review are ARG windshields, and parts thereof, whether clear or tinted, whether coated or not, and whether or not they include antennas, ceramics, mirror buttons or VIN notches, and whether or not they are encapsulated. ARG windshields are laminated safety glass ( i.e. , two layers of (typically float) glass with a sheet of clear or tinted plastic in between (usually polyvinyl butyral)), which are produced and sold for use by automotive glass installation shops to replace windshields in automotive vehicles ( e.g. , passenger cars, light trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, etc.) that are cracked, broken or otherwise damaged.

ARG windshields subject to this review are currently classifiable under subheading 7007.21.10.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS). Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are laminated automotive windshields sold for use in original assembly of vehicles. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 351.216 of the Department's regulations, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty finding which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The information submitted by Shenzhen CSG claiming to show that Shenzhen CSG is the successor-in-interest to Shenzhen Benxun shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. See 19 CFR 351.216(c) (2003).

In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act and 351.216 of the Department's regulations, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review to determine whether Shenzhun CSG is the successor in interest to Shenzhun Benxun. In antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) management, (2) organizational structure, (3) ownership, (4) production facilities, (5) supplier relationships, and (6) customer base. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 67513, 67515 (December 31, 2001) and Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review , 57 FR 20460, 20461 (May 13, 1992). While none of these factors is dispositive, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if its resulting operation is similar to that of the predecessor. See Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review , 59 FR 6944, 6946 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same entity as the former company, the Department will treat the new company as the successor-in-interest to the predecessor. See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999).

The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty changed circumstances review, in accordance with section 351.216(c), and 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. This notice will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based and a description of any action proposed based on those results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department will issue the final results of its antidumping duty changed circumstances review not later than 270 days after the date of publication of this notice.

During the course of this changed circumstances review, we will not change any cash deposit instructions on the merchandise subject to this review. Any changes if appropriate, will be made pursuant to the final results of this review.

This notice of initiation is in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and section 351.221(b)(1) of the Department's regulations.

The Department published an antidumping duty order on MTPs from Japan on February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5642). On February 24, 2003, the Department received a timely request for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on MTPs from HZC and its subsidiary, H&F. On February 27, 2002, the Department received a timely request from the petitioner, IHI-Verson Press Technology, LLC, for an administrative review of HZC and H&F. On February 28, 2003, HZC/H&F properly filed a timely request that the Department revoke the order with respect to its sales of MTPs in accordance with section 351.222(e) of the Department's regulations. On March 25, 2003, we published a notice initiating an administrative review of MTPs (68 FR 14394). The review covers H&F, which manufactured MTPs during the period of review (POR), and HZC, the parent company and nominal reseller, which owns a controlling interest in H&F. For purposes of all prior administrative reviews in which HZC and H&F have participated, we have treated these companies as affiliated and collapsed them.

Due to complicated issues in this case, on October 15, 2003, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review until no later than February 28, 2004. See Mechanical Transfer Presses From Japan: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review , 68 FR 59365 (October 15, 2003).

Imports covered by this antidumping duty order include mechanical transfer presses, currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 8462.10.0035, 8466.94.6540 and 8466.94.8540. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP purposes only. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. The term “mechanical transfer presses” refers to automatic metal-forming machine tools with multiple die stations in which the work piece is moved from station to station by a transfer mechanism designed as an integral part of the press and synchronized with the press action, whether imported as machines or parts suitable for use solely or principally with these machines. These presses may be imported assembled or unassembled.

The Department published in the Federal Register several notices of scope rulings with respect to MTPs from Japan, determining that (1) spare and replacement parts are outside the scope of the order ( see Notice of Scope Rulings , 57 FR 19602 (May 7, 1992)); (2) a destack feeder designed to be used with a mechanical transfer press is an accessory and, therefore, is not within the scope of the order ( see Notice of Scope Rulings , 57 FR 32973 (July 24, 1992)); (3) the FMX cold forging press is within the scope of the order ( see Notice of Scope Rulings , 59 FR 8910 (February 24, 1994)); and (4) certain mechanical transfer press parts exported from Japan are outside the scope of the order ( see Notice of Scope Rulings , 62 FR 9176 (February 28, 1997).

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and cost information provided by HZC and H&F using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial records.

Based on HZC's ownership interest in H&F (more than seventy percent), we continue to find as we have in past reviews that HZC and H&F are affiliated pursuant to sections 771(33)(E) and (G) of the Act. See Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 68 FR 11039 (March 7, 2003) and Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 68 FR 39515 (July 2, 2003) (MTPs 2001/2002 Review). See also Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 67 10363 (March 7, 2002) and Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation, in-Part 67 FR 35958 (May 22, 2002) (MTPs 2000/2001 Review). Furthermore, for purposes of this analysis, we are collapsing HZC and H&F. There is no new information or evidence of changed circumstances in this review to warrant reconsideration of this determination. See MTPs 2001/2002 Review. See also MTPs 2000/2001 Review .

On February 28, 2003, HZC/H&F requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), partial revocation of the order with respect to its sales of MTPs. HZC/H&F certified that: (1) it sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) in the future, it will not sell the subject merchandise at less than NV; and, (3) it agreed to immediate reinstatement under the order if the Department determines that, subsequent to revocation, it has sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.

Although HZC/H&F received zero margins in the two preceding reviews, based upon our finding that HZC/H&F sold subject merchandise at less than NV in this review, HZC/H&F has not demonstrated three consecutive years of sales in commercial quantities at not less than NV. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that partial revocation of the order with respect to HZC/H&F is not warranted.

To determine whether respondents' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared EP to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at which 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 the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser for export to the United States. Because HZC/H&F sold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated trading companies in Japan prior to importation into the United States, we have treated HZC/H&F's sales as EP sales for purposes of these preliminary results. We calculated EP for HZC/H&F based on the packed, freight-prepaid price to the U.S. customer. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. inland brokerage and handling, and installation supervision expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act.

While the home market is viable, in accordance with precedent in this case, we have determined that constructed value (CV) is appropriate as the basis for NV. See Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 68 FR 11039 (March 7, 2003); Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 68 FR 39515 (July 2, 2003); Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 67 10363 (March 7, 2002); and Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation, in-Part 67 FR 35958 (May 22, 2002).

Accordingly, we are using CV as the basis for NV for HZC/H&F, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. CV consists of direct materials, direct labor, variable overhead, fixed overhead (yielding total cost of manufacturing), plus selling, general and administrative expenses, net interest expense, profit, and U.S. packing expenses. We subtracted home market direct selling expenses (warranties and credit). We added to CV amounts for direct selling expenses (warranties and credit) for merchandise exported to the United States.

We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists:

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For HZC/H&F the assessment rate will be based on the margin above. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the entries during the period of review.

The following deposit rates will be effective with respect to all shipments of MTPs from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act. (1) For HZC/H&F, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be the “all others” rate established in the less than fair value investigation, which is 14.51 percent. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan 55 FR 335 (January 4, 1990). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until the publication of the next administrative review.

Pursuant to section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to section 351.309 of the Department's regulations, 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 in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations. Also, pursuant to section 351.310 of the Department's regulations, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, not later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, unless extended.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 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.

This administrative review and notice are issued in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C 1677f(i)(1)).

On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India (64 FR 8311).

In response to timely requests by three manufacturers/exporters, Agro Dutch Foods Ltd. (Agro Dutch), Saptarishi Agro Industries, Ltd. (Saptarishi Agro), and Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd. (Weikfield), as well as the petitioner, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to the following companies: Agro Dutch, Alpine Biotech, Ltd. (Alpine Biotech), Dinesh Agro Products, Ltd. (Dinesh Agro), Flex Foods, Ltd. (Flex Foods), Himalya International, Ltd. (Himalya), Mandeep Mushrooms, Ltd. (Mandeep Mushrooms), Premier Mushroom Farms (Premier), Saptarishi Agro, and Weikfield (68 FR 14399, March 25, 2003). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003.

On March 28, 2002, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the above-mentioned companies. On April 7, 2003, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for review with respect to Alpine Biotech and Mandeep Mushrooms, and on July 14, 2003, the petitioner withdrew its request for review of Himalya. In addition, Flex Foods reported that it had no sales of the subject merchandise during the POR, which we confirmed by reviewing data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ( see Memorandum to the File dated June 6, 2003). Accordingly, we published a Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review with respect to Alpine Biotech, Mandeep Mushrooms, Flex Foods, and Himalya on August 18, 2003 (68 FR 49435). While Saptarishi Agro withdrew its request for a review on May 13, 2003, the petitioner did not withdraw its request for a review of this company, therefore, we did not rescind the review with respect to Saptarishi Agro.

We received responses to the original questionnaire during the period May through July 2003 from Agro Dutch, Premier, and Weikfield. We issued supplemental questionnaires in July, September, and October 2003, and received responses from these companies during the period August through October 2003. We did not receive a response from either Dinesh Agro or Saptarishi Agro.

On June 6, 2003, the petitioner made an allegation that Agro Dutch sold certain preserved mushrooms in its third country market at prices below the COP. On July 8, 2003, the Department initiated a cost investigation of Agro Dutch's third country sales ( see Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Agro Dutch , Memorandum to the File dated July 8, 2003 ( Agro Dutch COP Initiation Memo ).

On July 15, 2003, the petitioner made an allegation that Premier sold certain preserved mushrooms in its home market at prices below the COP. On August 1, 2003, the Department initiated a cost investigation of Premier's home market sales ( see Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Premier , Memorandum to the File dated August 1, 2003 ( Premier COP Initiation Memo )).

On October 3, 2003, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review until March 1, 2004. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India and the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and New Shipper Review , 68 FR 57424.

In November 2003, we conducted on-site verifications of Premier's and Weikfield's questionnaire responses, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.307. The results of these verifications are described in Sales and Cost of Production Verification in Secunderabad, India of Premier Mushroom Farms , Memorandum to the File dated January 23, 2004 ( Premier Verification Report ), and Sales and Cost of Production Verification in Pune, India of Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd , Memorandum to the File dated December 23, 2003 ( Weikfield Verification Report ).

As instructed by the Department, Weikfield and Premier submitted revised U.S. and home market sales data pursuant to verification findings on January 20, 2004, and February 6, 2004, respectively.

On February 12, 2004, the petitioner submitted comments on Premier and Weikfield for purposes of the preliminary results. The petitioner submitted comments on Agro Dutch on February 13, 2004.

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

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

The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 2 (HTS). Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order dispositive.

As noted above in the “Background” section, neither Dinesh Agro nor Saptarishi Agro submitted a response to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. Because of Dinesh Agro's and Saptarishi Agro's refusal to cooperate in this review, we determine that the application of facts available is appropriate, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act).

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that “if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and 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.”

Because these two companies refused to participate in this administrative review, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, the use of total facts available is appropriate ( see, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 50183, 50184 (August 17, 2000) (for a more detailed discussion, see Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 40609, 40610-40611 (June 30, 2000)).

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 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,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, “an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the final determination from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. Under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has a responsibility not only to notify the Department if it is unable to provide requested information, but also to provide a “full explanation and suggested alternative forms.” Neither company responded to the Department's request for information, thereby failing to comply with this provision of the statute. Therefore, we determine that Dinesh Agro and Saptarishi Agro failed to cooperate to the best of their ability, making the use of an adverse inference appropriate.

In this proceeding, consistent with Department practice ( see, e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China , 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999), as adverse facts available, we have preliminarily assigned to exports of the subject merchandise produced by Dinesh Agro and Saptarishi Agro the rate of 66.24 percent, the highest rate calculated for any cooperative respondent in the original LTFV investigation or the three previous administrative reviews. The rates assigned to respondents in the previous segments of the proceeding range from de minimis for cooperative respondents to a petition rate of 243.87 percent for non-cooperative respondents. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). Consistent with the previous administrative reviews, we find the application of a rate of 66.24 percent to Dinesh Agro and Saptarishi Agro to be sufficiently adverse in this case. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA 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 at 870 and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1). The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value ( id .). To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. See 19 CFR 351.308(d).

Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department can derive calculated dumping margins; the only source for margins is administrative determinations. In a previous segment of this proceeding, the Department determined that the petition rate of 243.87 percent could not be corroborated and thus no longer had probative value for use as an adverse facts available rate with respect to Saptarishi Agro. We found that the next highest rate, the calculated rate of 66.24 percent from a respondent in a previous review, was sufficiently adverse and that there was no impediment for its application to Saptarishi Agro in that review. See Notice of Final Results of Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India 67 FR 46172 (July 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8.

We preliminarily determine that the calculated margin of 66.24 percent selected, as adverse facts available, is relevant, reliable, and has probative value because it is based on verified data from a respondent in a previous administrative review. Furthermore, although this margin is the highest in the range of calculated margins, there is no basis to conclude that it is aberrational or is inappropriate as applied to Dinesh Agro and Saptarishi Agro. The rate used is also the rate currently applicable to Saptarishi Agro. Accordingly, we determine that this rate is an appropriate rate to be applied in this review to exports of the subject merchandise produced by Dinesh Agro and Saptarishi Agro as facts otherwise available.

On February 28, 2003, the petitioner requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the Department, if requested, to determine during an administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated importer. Because this review was initiated four years after the publication of the order, and Agro Dutch, Premier, and Weikfield acted as importer of record for some or all of their U.S. sales, we must make a duty absorption determination in this segment of the proceeding within the meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act.

On September 30, 2003, the Department requested evidence from the respondents that unaffiliated purchasers will ultimately pay the antidumping duties to be assessed on entries during the review period. In determining whether the antidumping duties have been absorbed by the respondents during the POR on sales for which they were importer of record, we presume that the duties will be absorbed for those sales that have been made at less than normal value (NV). This presumption can be rebutted with evidence ( e.g. , an agreement between the respondent/importer and unaffiliated purchaser) that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. None of the respondents responded to the Department's request for information. Accordingly, based on the record, we cannot conclude that the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States will pay the ultimately assessed duty. Therefore, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by the producer or exporter during the POR on those sales for which the respondent was the importer of record. Premier was the importer of record for all of its sales to the United States, while Agro Dutch was the importer of record for 79.4 percent of its U.S. sales, and Weikfield was the importer of record for 71.7 percent of its U.S. sales. In addition, we find duty absorption for both Dinesh Agro and Saptarishi Agro on all of their sales, based on adverse facts available, because neither company responded to the Department's questionnaire.

To determine whether sales of certain preserved mushrooms by the respondents to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared export price (EP), as appropriate, to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by the respondents covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market (Premier and Weikfield) or third country market (Agro Dutch) within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order: preservation method, container type, mushroom style, weight, grade, container solution, and label type.

Agro Dutch reported grade characteristics for its sales that departed from the criteria reported in previous reviews or by other respondents. Based on the explanations at pages 6 - 8 of the August 6, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response, we are not persuaded that a departure from the methodology established throughout this proceeding is warranted as Agro Dutch failed to demonstrate any meaningful differences in physical characteristics to require five rather than three grade designations. Further, we note that some of the grade differences claimed by Agro Dutch are already defined by the mushroom style characteristic. Therefore, we have reclassified the products reported by Agro Dutch and reassigned product control numbers (CONNUMs) according to the methodology set forth in our questionnaire. See Agro Dutch Preliminary Results Notes and Margin Calculation , Memorandum to the File dated March 1, 2004, ( Agro Dutch Memo ) for a further discussion.

For Agro Dutch, Premier, and Weikfield, we used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly by the producer/exporter in India to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States.

Agro Dutch reported its U.S. sales as sold on an FOB, C&F, or CIF basis. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, freight document charges, transportation insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, Indian export duty (CESS), and international freight in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402.

Premier reported its U.S. sales as sold on an FOB Hyderabad basis. We made a deduction from the starting price, where appropriate, for brokerage and handling expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402.

Weikfield reported its U.S. sales as sold on a FOB port Mumbai, delivered duty paid, or C&F basis. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, export inspection fees, foreign inland and marine insurance, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, CESS, international freight, and U.S. duty (including U.S. brokerage and handling expenses) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402.

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondents' 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)(C) of the Act.

With regard to Premier and Weikfield, the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis for calculating NV for Premier and Weikfield.

With regard to Agro Dutch, we determined that the home market was not viable because Agro Dutch's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was less than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. However, we determined that the third country market of Israel was viable, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we have used third country sales as a basis for NV for Agro Dutch. However, in certain cases, Agro Dutch did not have sales of comparable merchandise to Israel that were contemporaneous with sales to the United States. In those instances, we calculated NV based on constructed value (CV) in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act 19 CFR 351.405.

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing ( id .); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa ( Plate from South Africa ) 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( i.e. , the “chain of distribution”), including selling functions, class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( i.e. , NV based on either home market or third country prices 3 ), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States , 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( i.e. , no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South Africa at 61731. We obtained information from the respondents regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below.

Agro Dutch sold to importers/traders through one channel of distribution in both the U.S. and Israeli markets. As described in its questionnaire response, Agro Dutch performs no selling functions in the United States or in any of the third countries to which it sells, including Israel. Therefore, these sales channels are at the same LOT. Accordingly, all comparisons are at the same LOT for Agro Dutch and an adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) is not warranted.

In the home market, Premier sold directly to small local distributors that sell to retailers or local hotels. We examined Premier's home market distribution system, including selling functions, classes of customers, and selling expenses, and determined that Premier offers the same support and assistance to all its home market customers. Accordingly, all of Premier's home market sales are made through the same channel of distribution and constitute one LOT.

With regard to sales to the United States, Premier made only EP sales to large distributors. We examined Premier's U.S. distribution system, including selling functions, classes of customers, and selling expenses, and determined that Premier offers the same support and assistance to all its U.S. customers. Accordingly, all of Premier's U.S. sales are made through the same channel of distribution and constitute one LOT. This EP LOT differed considerably from the home market LOT with respect to sales process, advertising, and inventory maintenance. Consequently, we could not match the EP LOT to sales at the same LOT in the home market. Since there was only one LOT in the home market, there was no pattern of consistent price differences between different LOTs in the home market, and we do not have any other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment. Accordingly, we have not made a LOT adjustment. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Weikfield's home market sales are made via two channels of distribution: a) direct sales to large quantity end-users, and b) sales to distributors and “carrying and forwarding” (C&F) agents, which either resell the merchandise to small quantity end-users, or act as Weikfield's agent in selling and distributing the merchandise to small quantity end-users. We examined Weikfield's home market distribution system, including selling functions, classes of customers, and selling expenses, and determined that Weikfield offers the same support and assistance to all its home market customers except with respect to sales promotion activities. In the Indian states of Maharashtra and Goa, Weikfield's affiliate WPCL includes Weikfield's preserved mushrooms products in its market development activities to promote sales.

With respect to such functions as sales negotiation, freight and distribution services, and inventory maintenance, the two channels involve the same services performed by Weikfield. With respect to sales promotion activities, the level of sales promotion activities performed by WPCL are not so extensive as to constitute a separate LOT. Accordingly, we consider all of Weikfield's home market sales to constitute one LOT.

With regard to sales to the United States, Weikfield made only EP sales to importers/traders. We examined Weikfield's U.S. distribution system, including selling functions, classes of customers, and selling expenses, and determined that Weikfield offers the same support and assistance to all its U.S. customers. Accordingly, all of Weikfield's U.S. sales are made through the same channel of distribution and constitute one LOT.

We compared the EP LOT to the home market LOT and concluded that the selling functions performed for home market customers are sufficiently similar to those performed for U.S. customers because the same services are offered in both markets. Apart from the promotion activities conducted by WPCL on Weikfield's behalf in the home market which are not extensive, as discussed above, Weikfield does not perform different selling activities in either the U.S. or home markets. Weikfield's selling activities undertaken in both markets are limited to responding to infrequent product complaints and, in the home market, arranging for domestic freight on certain sales. Accordingly, we consider the EP and home market LOTs to be the same. Consequently, we are comparing EP sales to sales at the same LOT in the home market.

As stated in the “Background” section of this notice, based on timely allegations filed by the petitioner, the Department initiated investigations to determine whether Agro Dutch's third country sales and Premier's home market sales were made at prices less than the COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See Agro Dutch COP Initiation Memo and Premier COP Initiation Memo.

In addition, the Department disregarded certain sales made by Weikfield in the 2001-2002 administrative review, pursuant to findings in that review that sales failed the cost test ( see Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India , 68 FR 41303 (July 11, 2003). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Weikfield made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period.

We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum of each company's respective costs of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, interest expense, and all expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in a condition packed ready for shipment in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

We relied on the COP information submitted by Agro Dutch, Premier, and Weikfield, except for the following adjustments:

For all three companies, on a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP to the prices of home market or third country market sales of the foreign like product, as required by section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices (inclusive of interest revenue, where appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, discounts, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses, revised where appropriate as discussed below under “Price-to-Price Comparisons.” In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made: (1) within an extended period of time, (2) in substantial quantities; and (3) at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because we determined that they represented “substantial quantities” 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, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

The results of our cost test for Weikfield indicated that less than 20 percent of home market sales of any given product were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV.

The results of our cost tests for Agro Dutch and Premier indicated that for certain products more than 20 percent of home market sales within an extended period of time were at prices below COP which would not permit the full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See 773(b)(2) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV.

For Agro Dutch, Premier and Weikfield, we based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is first sold for consumption in the home market or third country market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as EP, as defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.

Home market or third country prices were based on ex-Hyderabad, FOB Indian port, or delivered prices. We reduced the starting price for discounts (Weikfield), credit notes (Premier), and movement expenses (Agro Dutch, Premier and Weikfield), and increased the starting price for interest revenue (Premier), where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401. We treated Premier's discounts as commissions. See Memorandum to the File dated March 1, 2004, Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Premier Mushroom Farms ( Premier ). We also reduced the starting price for packing costs incurred in the home market, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i), and increased NV to account for U.S. packing expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A). We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, bank fees, and commissions, where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. For Premier and Weikfield, we made an adjustment to NV to account for commissions paid in the home market but not in the U.S. market, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e). As the offset for home market commissions, we applied the lesser of home market commissions or U.S. indirect selling expenses.

During the POR, a number of Agro Dutch's shipments to the United States were rejected and returned to India. A large portion of these sales were resold to third country markets other than Israel. See page 15 and Exhibit Supp. C-1 of Agro Dutch's August 6, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response, and Agro Dutch's December 15, 2003, letter. To account for these expenses, we included the expenses incurred to ship the rejected sales to the United States as an indirect selling expense for U.S. sales. In addition, we also included as an indirect selling expense for U.S. sales the expenses incurred to return the rejected sales to India, less an amount for merchandise resold to third country customers. See Agro Dutch Memo , for a further discussion of these expenses.

We recalculated Premier's indirect selling expenses to include certain sales expenses incorrectly included in labor and G&A. See Premier Verification Report at page 26.

Consistent with our treatment in the previous review, we have not considered Weikfield's commission payments to WPCL on home market and U.S. sales to be at arm's length, and instead have included the selling expenses incurred by WPCL on Weikfield's behalf as part of Weikfield's indirect selling expenses. See AR3 Final Results , Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 4 and 7.

As discussed at page 22 of the Weikfield Verification Report , Weikfield was unable to demonstrate that it actually incurred a freight expense on sales made to customers near its production facility. Sales to these customers were shipped either by Weikfield's own trucks, or by local contractors for whom no payment records were maintained. Therefore, we did not deduct movement expenses from the starting price for these sales.

We recalculated Weikfield's home market imputed credit expense based on the methodology used in its questionnaire response to account for revisions to prices, discounts and payment dates made to the sales data base as a result of verification findings, and to deduct freight expenses from the price base for sales made on a freight-collect basis, where the cost of freight was deducted on the invoice, but not from the price base used to calculate imputed credit.

To calculate U.S. indirect selling expenses, we used the U.S. indirect selling expense ratio Weikfield calculated at verification because Weikfield did not include a U.S. indirect selling expense in its reported sales listing. See Weikfield Verification Report at page 29.

On February 3, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice in the Federal Register (68 FR 5272) of the opportunity for interested parties to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from India.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on February 26, 2003, the Department received a request for an administrative review from Venus Wires Industries Ltd. (Venus), an Indian producer/exporter of SSB in India. On February 27, 2003, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the Department received a request for an administrative review from the petitioners ( i.e. , Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy Corp., Slater Steels Corp., Empire Specialty Steel and the United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC)), for the following producers/exporters of stainless steel bar in India: Chandan Steel Limited (Chandan), Isibars Limited (Isibars), Jyoti Steel Industries (Jyoti), Venus, and the Viraj Group, including but not necessarily limited to Viraj Alloys, Ltd. (VAL), Viraj Forgings, Ltd. (VFL), Viraj ImpoExpo Ltd., Viraj Smelting, and Viraj Profiles (collectively, Viraj). Finally, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on February 28, 2003, the Department received additional requests to conduct an administrative review from four Indian exporters ( i.e. , Ferro Alloys Corp. Ltd. (FACOR), Isibars, Mukand, Ltd. (Mukand), and Viraj). As part of its request, Viraj also requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order with regard to its sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b).

On March 25, 2003, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India for the following companies: Chandan, FACOR, Isibars, Jyoti, Mukand, Venus, and Viraj. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 68 FR 14394 (Mar. 25, 2003). We issued questionnaires to each of these companies on April 4, 2003.

On April 7, 2003, and May 9, 2003, respectively, Mukand and FACOR withdrew their requests for review. For further discussion, see the “Partial Rescission of Review” section of this notice, below.

In May 2003, we received responses to section A of the Department's questionnaire from Chandan, Isibars, Jyoti, Venus, and Viraj. (Because Isibars improperly filed its section A questionnaire response, we did not place this information on the record until August 11, 2003.)

Also in May 2003, respectively, we issued supplemental section A questionnaires to Chandan and Venus. We received responses to those supplemental questionnaires on May 30 and June 24, 2003, respectively.

In May and June 2003, we received responses to sections B and C of the questionnaire from Chandan, Isibars, Jyoti, Venus, and Viraj. (Because Isibars improperly filed its sections B and C questionnaire responses, we did not place this information on the record until August 11, 2003.)

In June 2003, we received section D responses from Isibars and Venus.

On June 23, 2003, the petitioners submitted timely allegations that Chandan and Viraj made sales below the cost of production (COP). With respect to Viraj, we found that the petitioners' allegation provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the home market by Viraj had been made at prices below the COP. Consequently, on July 1, 2003, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we initiated an investigation to determine whether Viraj made home market sales during the period of review (POR) at prices below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See the July 1, 2003, memorandum to Louis Apple from the Team entitled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Bar from India: Analysis of the Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Viraj ImpoExpo Ltd.” (sales below cost allegation memo—Viraj). Accordingly, we notified Viraj that it must respond to Section D of the antidumping duty questionnaire. On July 29, 2003, we received Viraj's response to the Department's section D questionnaire.

Regarding Chandan, the petitioners alleged that Chandan's sales in its largest third-country market were made at prices below their COP, even thought Chandan's home market was viable. Because we did not intend to rely on Chandan's third-country sales as the basis for normal value (NV), we did not analyze the petitioners' allegation of sales below the COP in the third country market.

In June 2003, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Chandan, Jyoti, and Viraj. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires in June and July 2003.

In July 2003, we issued additional supplemental questionnaires to Chandan, Isibars, Jyoti, and Venus. We received responses to these questionnaires from Chandan, Jyoti, and Venus in July and August 2003. We did not receive a response from Isibars to its supplemental questionnaire. For further discussion, see the “Facts Available” section of this notice below.

On July 21, 2003, in response to Chandan's revised section B submission, the petitioners made a timely allegation that Chandan made home market sales below the COP. We found that the petitioners' allegation provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the home market made by Chandan had been made at prices below the COP.

On July 29, 2003, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine whether Chandan made home market sales during the POR at prices below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See the July 29, 2003, memorandum to Louis Apple from the Team entitled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Bar from India: Analysis of the Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Chandan Steel, Ltd.” Accordingly, we notified Chandan that it must respond to Section D of the antidumping duty questionnaire. We received Chandan's response to section D of the Department's questionnaire on September 2, 2003.

On August 4, 2003, the Department found that due to the large number of respondents, and the time required to review and analyze the responses once they were received, it was not practicable to complete this review within the time allotted. Accordingly, we published an extension of time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of this review to no later than February 28, 2004, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 68 FR 45793 (Aug. 4, 2003).

On August 11, 2003, we requested that Jyoti provide corrected cost data such that difference in merchandise (difmer) adjustments would be possible, if required. We received Jyoti's response to its difmer supplemental questionnaire on August 19, 2003.

In August 2003, we issued to Chandan, Jyoti, and Venus additional supplemental questionnaires. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires in August and September 2003.

Based on Jyoti's supplemental section B response, on October 2, 2003, the petitioners submitted a timely allegation that Jyoti made home market sales below the COP. We found that the petitioners' allegation provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the home market by Jyoti had been made at prices below the COP. Consequently, on October 15, 2003, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine whether Jyoti made home market sales during the POR at prices below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See the October 15, 2003, memorandum to Louis Apple from the Team entitled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Bar from India: Analysis of the Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Jyoti Steel Industries.” Accordingly, we notified Jyoti that it must respond to Section D of the antidumping duty questionnaire.

In October 2003, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Chandan and Viraj. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires in November 2003.

We received Jyoti's response to the Department's section D questionnaire on November 10, 2003.

In January 2004, we issued Chandan a final supplemental questionnaire. We also received Chandan's response to this supplemental questionnaire in January 2004.

On January 23, 2004, we determined that Jyoti's submissions contained serious deficiencies which could not be remedied given the time constraints of this administrative review. Consequently, we determined that it was not appropriate to either issue Jyoti an additional supplemental questionnaire in this administrative review or to conduct verification of Jyoti's responses, and we notified Jyoti of these decisions accordingly. For further discussion, see the “Facts Available” section of this notice below.

From January 27, 2004, through February 6, 2004, we conducted verification of Viraj's responses at Viraj's offices in Mumbai, India.

Imports covered by this review are shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( i.e. , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire ( i.e. , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes, and sections.

The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

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

As noted above, on April 7, 2003, and May 9, 2003, respectively, Mukand and FACOR withdrew their requests for an administrative review. Because the petitioners did not request an administrative review of either FACOR or Mukand and both FACOR and Mukand withdrew their requests within the time limit specified under 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding our review with respect to these companies.

On February 28, 2003, Viraj requested revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to its sales of the subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). In a subsequent submission, Viraj provided each of the certifications required under 19 CFR 351.222(e).

The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires, inter alia , that a company requesting revocation must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not sell subject merchandise at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the United States in each of the three years forming the basis of the request; and (3) an agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will consider: (1) Whether the company in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) whether the company has agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV; and (3) whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i).

We preliminarily determine that the request from Viraj meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. With regard to the criteria of subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculations show that Viraj sold SSB at not less than normal value during the current review period. See dumping margins below. In addition, Viraj sold SSBs at not less than NV in the two previous administrative reviews in which it was involved ( i.e. , Viraj's dumping margin was zero or de minimis ). See Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 68 FR 47543 (Aug. 11, 2003) ( 2001-2002 SSB AR Final ), covering the period February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002, and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar From India , 67 FR 53336 (Aug. 15, 2002), covering the period February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001.

Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Viraj, we preliminarily determine that Viraj sold the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years cited by Viraj to support its request for revocation. See the March 1, 2004, memorandum to the file from Michael Strollo entitled, “Analysis of Commercial Quantities for Viraj Group Ltd.'s Request for Revocation,” which is on file in room B-099 of the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099. Thus, we preliminarily find that Viraj had zero or de minimis dumping margins for its last three administrative reviews and sold in commercial quantities in each of these years. Also, we preliminarily determine that application of the antidumping order to Viraj is no longer warranted for the following reasons: (1) The company had zero or de minimis margins for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than fair value; and (3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Viraj qualifies for revocation of the order on SSB pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and that the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by Viraj should be revoked. If these preliminary findings are affirmed in our final results, we will revoke this order in part for Viraj and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for any of the merchandise in question that is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2003, and will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund any cash deposits for such entries.

In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that the use of facts available is appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for the following producer/exporters: Chandan, Isibars, and Jyoti. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party: (1) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c) and (e) of the Act; (3) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping statute; or (4) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.

On May 27, 2003, and June 20, 2003, Isibars submitted responses to sections A/B/C and D of the Department's questionnaire, respectively. Because these responses contained significant and pervasive deficiencies, on July 11, 2003, and August 7, 2003, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Isibars. At the request of Isibars, we granted the company over five weeks to respond to these questionnaires. Despite the fact that Isibars had sufficient time to respond, it failed to do so.

We find that Isibars' questionnaire responses contain pervasive and significant deficiencies rendering its submissions so incomplete that they cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a determination. See section 782(e) of the Act. For example, Isibars, inter alia : (1) Failed to substantiate ownership and control of both Isibars and its affiliates; (2) failed to reconcile the total sales value reported in the U.S. sales listing to its 2002 and 2003 financial statements; (3) failed to reconcile the total sales value reported in the home market sales listing to its 2001, 2002, and 2003 financial statements; (4) failed to demonstrate that sales to affiliated parties were reported correctly in the home market sales listing; (5) reported home market sales of significantly different volumes and values in the section B response than the aggregate volume and value of home market sales in the section A response; (6) failed to confirm that stainless steel black bars were reported in both the quantity and value of sales in both the home market and the United States; (7) failed to adequately describe the selling functions performed by Isibars and its affiliates in either the home or U.S. markets; (8) incorrectly reported the dates of sale and payment for certain home market transactions; (9) reported size incorrectly; (10) failed to include a narrative description of several product codes listed in the database submitted to the Department; (11) failed to report costs based upon the correct fiscal year; (12) failed to report unique costs for each control number; (13) failed to substantiate various cost allocations; (14) failed to provide several cost reconciliations, the most important being a reconciliation of the financial statements to the general ledger; and (15) failed to provide all worksheets substantiating its calculations. For a complete list of the deficiencies in Isibars' responses, see the supplemental questionnaires issued to this company on July 11, 2003, and August 7, 2003.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party (1) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department (2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested (3) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping statute, or (4) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e), use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. As discussed above, Isibars' information was so incomplete that it could not be used by the Department. As such, the Department must use facts otherwise available with regard to Isibars pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act.

As noted above, Jyoti responded to the Department's questionnaire on May 27, 2003. Because this questionnaire response contained substantial errors and omissions, we issued Jyoti six supplemental questionnaires. In four of these supplemental requests, we required Jyoti to recalculate its manufacturing costs reported as part of its difmer adjustment. Although we afforded Jyoti ample time to respond to each of these six requests, Jyoti's submissions were not only incomplete, they were largely unresponsive to the Department's explicit instructions.

As a result of Jyoti's failure to provide adequate difmer data, the petitioners were unable to use Jyoti's submissions as the basis for a sales below COP allegation until October 2003, more than four months after the Department received Jyoti's initial sections B and C response.

Nonetheless, in October 2003, the petitioners provided adequate reason for the Department to believe or suspect that sales in the home market by Jyoti had been made at prices below the COP. On November 14, 2003, Jyoti submitted a wholly inadequate response to the Section D questionnaire, failing to remedy the deficiencies remaining in its cost reporting. As noted above, we had previously notified Jyoti of these deficiencies and required the company to remedy them. The most significant of these deficiencies are summarized below.

Specifically, Jyoti: (1) Failed to provide costs on a POR weighted-average basis; (2) failed to provide direct material costs on a POR weighted-average basis using the total raw materials consumed during the POR; (3) failed to account for physical differences (grade, size, and finish) in its labor and variable overhead costs; (4) failed to provide cost reconciliations including the reconciliation of total fiscal year costs from Jyoti's financial accounting system to the costs from audited financial statements, the reconciliation of total fiscal year cost of manufacturing from financial statements to the total per-unit manufacturing costs submitted, reconciliation of differences between methodology used to report costs and Jyoti's normal record keeping, reconciliation of the cost of merchandise not under consideration, reconciliation of cost of merchandise under consideration but not sold to the United States and Hong Kong, reconciliation of reported general and administrative (G&A) expenses to the audited financial statements, and reconciliation of reported interest expenses to the audited financial statements; (5) improperly included costs incurred outside the POR ( i.e. , from the window periods before and after the POR) in its reported COP; (6) failed to provide a complete description of its production facilities and the products produced at each facility; (7) failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the inputs used to produce the subject merchandise ( i.e. , raw materials, labor, energy, subcontractor services, etc.); (8) failed to provide sufficient detail regarding its internal taxes; and (9) incorrectly calculated its reported G&A expenses on a market-specific basis instead of using data from its audited financial statements.

In light of these deficiencies and omissions, we find that Jyoti's responses to the Department's requests for cost data were so incomplete that they could not serve as a reliable basis for reaching the instant determination. Specifically, we note that COP/constructed value (CV) data is vital to our dumping analysis, because: (1) It provides the basis for determining whether comparison market sales can be used to calculate normal value; and (2) in certain instances ( e.g. , when there are no comparison market sales made at prices above the COP), it is used as the basis of NV itself. In cases involving a sales-below-cost investigation, as in this case, lack of COP/CV information renders a company's response so incomplete as to be unuseable. See, e.g., Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice From Brazil; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 43650, 43655 (Aug. 11, 1999); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Canada , 64 FR 15457 (Mar. 31, 1999); Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 76, 82 (Jan. 4, 1999); Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand , 63 FR 43661, 43664 (Aug. 14, 1998); and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 62 FR 18396, 18401 (Apr. 15, 1997). See also section 782(e) of the Act.

Despite the Department's attempts to obtain the missing information, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, Jyoti failed to rectify its deficiencies. Thus, the Department finds that we must resort to facts otherwise available in reaching our preliminary results, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.

As noted above, Chandan responded to section A of the Department's questionnaire on May 15, 2003, sections B and C on June 9, 2003, and section D on September 2, 2003. Because these questionnaire responses contained substantial errors and omissions, we issued Chandan seven supplemental questionnaires. Although we afforded Chandan ample time to respond to each of these seven requests, Chandan's submissions were not only incomplete, they were largely unresponsive to the Department's explicit instructions.

In particular, on October 9, 2003, the Department issued Chandan a supplemental section D questionnaire requesting that it provide additional information or clarification on a number of issues, as well as the missing items from the prior cost response. Despite the fact that Chandan was granted almost a month in which to respond to this supplemental section D questionnaire, on November 5, 2003, Chandan submitted an inadequate response. Consequently, on January 14, 2004, we issued Chandan an additional supplemental questionnaire requesting that it provide largely the same information identified previously. On January 26, 2004, Chandan again submitted a wholly inadequate response to the supplemental section D questionnaire. The most significant of these deficiencies are summarized below.

Specifically, Chandan: (1) Failed to calculate certain costs based upon its internal costs, instead relying upon charges billed by a “toll-processor”; (2) failed to report unique costs for each type of finishing operation; (3) failed to report bright bar yield loss; (4) failed to provide correct cost size ranges; (5) failed to provide cost reconciliations including the reconciliation of total fiscal year cost of manufacturing from financial statements to the total per-unit manufacturing costs submitted, reconciliation of differences between methodology used to report costs and Chandan's normal record keeping, and reconciliation of cost of merchandise by market; (6) systematically failed to provide requested worksheets or other substantiation to justify its calculations and allocations; and (7) failed to fully allocate all costs.

In light of these deficiencies and omissions, we find that Chandan's cost data was so incomplete that it could not serve as a reasonable basis for reaching the instant determination. As noted above, COP/CV data is vital to our dumping analysis, especially where, as here, the case involves a sales-below-cost-allegation.

Despite the Department's attempts to obtain the missing information, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, Chandan failed to rectify its deficiencies. Thus, the Department must resort to facts otherwise available in reaching our preliminary results, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.

In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales of Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Each of the respondents was notified in the Department's questionnaires that failure to submit the requested information by the date specified might result in use of facts available. Generally, it is reasonable for the Department to assume that Chandan, Isibars, and Jyoti possessed the records necessary for this administrative review and that by not supplying the information the Department requested, these companies failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. In addition, none of the companies in this review argued that they were incapable of providing the information the Department requested. Accordingly, because Chandan, Isibars, and Jyoti failed to submit useable sales and/or cost information which was not only specifically requested by the Department but was also fundamental to the dumping analysis, we have assigned these companies margins based on total adverse facts available (AFA), consistent with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and 776(b) of the Act.

As AFA for Chandan, Isibars, and Jyoti, we have used the highest rate ever assigned to any respondent in any segment of this proceeding. This rate is 21.02 percent. We find that this rate, which was the rate alleged in the petition and assigned in the investigation of this proceeding, is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule ( i.e. , we find that this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding). (This margin was also assigned to Mukand in the most recent most recently completed segment of the proceeding. See 2001-2002 SSB AR Final.) See also Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12752, 12762-3 (Mar. 16, 1998).

As facts available in this case, the Department has used information derived from the petition, which constitutes secondary information. See 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1). Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Department's regulations provide that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See 19 CFR 351.308(d). To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used.

To corroborate the selected margin, we considered that we have corroborated the 21.02 percent petition rate in a prior review. See 2001-2002 SSB AR Final, 68 FR 47543 and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 1. In this review, we compared the selected rate ( i.e. , 21.02 percent) to individual transaction margins for companies in this administrative review with weighted-average margins above de minimis . We found that the selected margin falls within the range of individual transaction margins and that there were a significant number of sales, made in the ordinary course of trade, in commercial quantities, with margins near or exceeding 21.02 percent. On this basis, we determined that the selected margin was reliable as there is no evidence on the record of this review that would lead us to change our assessment of the reliability of the 21.02 rate.

Accordingly, we consider the 21.02 percent margin to be corroborated in this review, and have assigned Chandan, Isibars, and Jyoti this rate as total AFA.

In this administrative review, in past administrative reviews of SSB from India, and in other antidumping proceedings before the Department, the Viraj Group Ltd. has responded to the Department's questionnaires on behalf of the affiliated companies comprising the Viraj Group, Ltd. ( i.e. , VAL, Viraj Impo/Expo, Ltd. (VIL), and VFL). See 2001-2002 SSB AR Final and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 10; see also Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 26288-03 (May 15, 2003); Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 70765 (Dec. 19, 2003); Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 1040 (Jan. 8, 2003). In the 2001-2002 AR Final, the Department collapsed VAL, VIL and VFL because the record evidence demonstrated that VAL and VIL were able to produce similar or identical merchandise ( i.e. , the merchandise under review) during the POR and could continue to do so, independently or under existing agreements, without substantial retooling of their production facilities. The Department also found that there was a significant potential for the manipulation of price and production among VAL, VIL and VFL. Because the record evidence in this review is the same as the facts upon which the Department relied in past administrative reviews, we continue to find that VAL, VIL and VFL are affiliated and should be treated as one entity for the purposes of this administrative review ( i.e. , collapsed) pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(f).

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and cost information provided by Viraj. We used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in Viraj's verification reports placed in the case file in the Central Records Unit, main Commerce building, room B-099.

To determine whether sales of SSB from India to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.414(c)(2), we compared individual EPs and CEPs to weighted-average NVs, which were calculated in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act.

When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade ( i.e. , sales within the same month which passed the cost test), we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the characteristics listed in sections B and C of our antidumping questionnaire, or CV, as appropriate.

Also, in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to compare products produced by the same company and sold in the U.S. and home markets that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: type, grade, remelting process, finishing operation, shape, and size. Where there were no home market sales of the foreign like product that were identical in these respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S. products with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of priority. Where we were unable to match U.S. sales to home market sales of the foreign like product, we based NV on CV.

For all U.S. sales made by Venus, we used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of the record.

We based EP on packed CIF and delivered duty paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handing, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight, and other U.S. brokerage and handling expenses.

For all U.S. sales made by Viraj, we used CEP methodology, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, for those sales where the merchandise was sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.

We based CEP on packed, CIF, and ex-dock duty-paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handing, international freight, marine insurance, clearance expenses, and U.S. customs duties.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including indirect selling expenses. We revised indirect selling expenses to calculate POR expenses over POR sales. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using the expenses incurred by Viraj and its affiliate on their sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

Venus and Viraj claimed a duty drawback adjustment based on their participation in the Indian government's Duty Entitlement Passbook Program. Such adjustments are permitted under section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

The Department will grant a respondent's claim for a duty drawback adjustment where the respondent has demonstrated that there is (1) a sufficient link between the import duty and the rebate, and (2) a sufficient amount of raw materials imported and used in the production of the final exported product. See Rajinder Pipe Ltd. v. United States (Rajinder Pipes), 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT 1999). In Rajinder Pipes, the Court of International Trade upheld the Department's decision to deny a respondent's claim for duty drawback adjustments because there was not substantial evidence on the record to establish that part one of the Department's test had been met. See also Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 01-104 (CIT August 15, 2001).

In this administrative review, Venus and Viraj have failed to demonstrate that there is a link between the import duty paid and the rebate received, and that imported raw materials are used in the production of the final exported product. Therefore, because they have failed to meet the Department's requirements, we are denying the respondents' requests for a duty drawback adjustment. See the March 1, 2004, memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood to the file entitled, “Calculations Performed for Venus Wire Industries Limited (Venus) for the Preliminary Results in the 2002-2003 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Bars from India,” (Venus preliminary results calculation memo) and the March 1, 2004, memorandum from Mike Strollo to the file entitled, “Calculations Performed for Viraj Group, Ltd. (Viraj) for the Preliminary Results in the 2002-2003 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Bars from India,” (Viraj preliminary results calculation memo) for further details.

In order 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 five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market sales. We made adjustments to Viraj's reported data based on our findings at verification. See the Viraj preliminary results calculation memo.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Venus had made home market sales at prices below its COP in this review because the Department had disregarded home market sales that failed the cost test for this company in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which Venus participated ( i.e. , the 1998-1999 administrative review). As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether these companies had made home market sales during the POR at prices below their COPs. See Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review , 65 FR 48965 (Aug. 10, 2000). In addition, on June 23, 2003, the petitioners submitted a timely allegation that Viraj made home market sales below the COP. We found that the petitioners' allegation provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the home market by Viraj had been made at prices below the COP. See the sales-below-cost allegation memo—Viraj.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A, and interest expenses, and home market packing costs, where appropriate ( see the “Test of Home Market Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses).

We relied on the COP data submitted by the respondents, except where noted below:

1. We adjusted Venus' G&A expense ratio to include donations and exclude G&A expenses incurred by Precision Metals, an affiliated Indian selling agent; and

2. We adjusted Venus' interest expense ratio to exclude interest expenses incurred by Precision Metals.

For a detailed discussion of these adjustments, see the Venus preliminary results calculation memorandum.

1. We based VAL's G&A and financing expenses on data from its 2002-2003 financial statements, rather than its 2001-2002 financial statements as reported;

2. We included the profit/loss on sales of motor cars in the calculation of VAL's G&A ratio;

3. We included the current year portion of ammortization expenses associated with a change in VAL's depreciation methodologies. See the memorandum to Neal Halper from Ji Young Oh entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results,” dated August 4, 2003, placed on the record of this administrative review.

4. We included all interest charges incurred by VIL during its 2002-2003 fiscal year in the calculation of VIL's financing ratio.

For a detailed discussion of the above-mentioned adjustments, see the Viraj preliminary results calculation memorandum.

On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether sales had been made at prices below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, billing adjustments, commissions, discounts and indirect selling expenses. We revised indirect selling expenses to calculate POR expenses over POR sales. 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 Act, whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and (2) at prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices below the COP, we found that sales of that model were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such cases, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded these below-cost sales for both respondents and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of SSB for which there were no comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EP to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, selling, G&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We made the same adjustments to the CV costs as described in the “Calculation of COP” section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A 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.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B), to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id. ; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) ( Plate from South Africa ). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( i.e. , the chain of distribution), 1 including selling functions, 2 class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales, ( i.e. , NV based on either home market or third country prices  3 ) we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling expenses reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States , 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and we are unable to make a level of trade adjustment, the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South Africa , 62 FR at 61733.

Both Venus and Viraj claimed that they made home market sales at one LOT. We analyzed the information on the record and found that both respondents performed essentially the same marketing functions in selling to all of their home market customers, regardless of customer category ( i.e. , end user and trading company). Therefore, we determined that both respondents made home market sales at one LOT.

Regarding Venus's U.S. sales, Venus reported that it made U.S. sales at two LOTs ( i.e. , sales directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers and sales through an Indian affiliate, Precision Metals). We examined the selling functions this company performs and determined that additional selling functions were performed on certain U.S. sales. Specifically, we found that Venus performs an additional layer of selling functions on its sales through Precision Metals which are not performed on its direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers. Because these additional selling functions are significant, we find that Venus's sales through Precision Metals are at a different LOT than its direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers. Further, we find that Venus's direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers are at the same LOT as Venus's home market sales. Therefore, for these sales, no LOT adjustment is warranted. However, with respect to Venus' sales through its Indian affiliate, given that Venus sold at only one LOT in the home market, and there is no additional information on the record that would allow for a LOT adjustment, no LOT adjustment is possible for Venus.

Viraj reported the same LOT and channel of distribution for all its sales in both India and the United States. The U.S. selling activities differ from the home market selling activities only with respect to freight and delivery. These differences are not substantial. Therefore, we find that the CEP level of trade is the same as the home market LOT and an LOT adjustment is not necessary. Moreover, because there is no evidence on the record to indicate that the selling functions for sales to Viraj's home market were made at a different LOT than its U.S. sales, we are not granting a CEP offset adjustment, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.412(f).

We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for billing adjustments. 4 We also made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, commissions, and bank charges and bank interest expenses. 5 Specifically, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset the commissions incurred in one market but not the other with indirect selling expenses incurred in the other market by the lesser of the commission or the indirect selling expense.

Where appropriate, we made an adjustment to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), for CV-to-EP comparisons, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, commissions, and bank charges and bank interest expenses.

We based NV on the ex-factory starting prices to home market customers. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for differences in credit expenses and commissions. Specifically, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset the commissions incurred in the home market with indirect selling expenses incurred in the U.S. market by the lesser of the commission or the indirect selling expense.

Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.

For CV-to-CEP comparisons, we made an adjustment, where appropriate, for differences in credit expenses and commissions, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act. Specifically, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset the commissions incurred in the home market with indirect selling expenses incurred in the U.S. market by the lesser of the commission or the indirect selling expense.

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

We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping margins:

Because we are preliminarily revoking the order with respect to Viraj's exports of subject merchandise, if these results are unchanged in the final results of review, we will order CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for exports of such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2003, and to refund all cash deposits collected.

The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Venus and Viraj, for those sales with a reported entered value, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales.

Regarding certain of Venus's sales, for assessment purposes, we do not have the information to calculate entered value because Venus was not the importer of record for the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the CEPs and/or EPs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e. , less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP.

Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of SSB from India, except those made by Viraj, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies 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 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 merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 12.45 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915, 66921 (Dec. 28, 1994).

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

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

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

The preliminary determination in this investigation was issued on December 16, 2003. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons From France , 68 FR 71068 (December 22, 2003) ( Preliminary Determination ). Since the publication of the preliminary determination, the following events have occurred. On January 5 and January 16, 2004, petitioner, International Imaging Materials, Inc. (IIMAK), submitted additional comments regarding (1) its allegation that respondents in the three concurrent investigations of TTR (France, Japan, and South Korea) would attempt to circumvent the order by slitting jumbo rolls in third countries, and (2) its request that the Department therefore determine that slitting does not change the country of origin of TTR for antidumping purposes. On January 9, 2004, Armor, S.A. (Armor), the sole respondent in the French investigation, submitted additional comments on the country-of-origin issue. DigiPrint International (DigiPrint), a U.S. importer of TTR slit in India, submitted comments on January 2, 2004, on the country-of-origin issue. Refer to Preliminary Determination for a history of all previous comments submitted on this issue.

This investigation covers wax and wax/resin thermal transfer ribbons (TTR), in slit or unslit (“jumbo”) form originating from France with a total wax (natural or synthetic) content of all the image side layers, that transfer in whole or in part, of equal to or greater than 20 percent by weight and a wax content of the colorant layer of equal to or greater than 10 percent by weight, and a black color as defined by industry standards by the CIELAB (International Commission on Illumination) color specification such that L*<35, -20<a*<35, and -40<b*<31, and black and near-black TTR. TTR is typically used in printers generating alphanumeric and machine-readable characters, such as bar codes and facsimile machines.

The petition does not cover resin TTR, and finished thermal transfer ribbons with a width greater than 212 millimeters (mm), but not greater than 220 mm (or 8.35 to 8.66 inches) and a length of 230 meters (m) or less ( i.e. , slit fax TTR, including cassetted TTR), and ribbons with a magnetic content of greater than or equal to 45 percent, by weight, in the colorant layer.

The merchandise subject to this investigation may be classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at heading 3702 and subheadings 3921.90.40.25, 9612.10.90.30, 3204.90, 3506.99, 3919.90, 3920.62, 3920.99 and 3926.90. The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

As noted above, petitioner has requested that the Department determine that TTR produced in France (in jumbo roll, i.e., unslit form) that is slit in a third country does not change the country of origin for antidumping purposes. According to petitioner, because slitting does not constitute a “substantial transformation,” French jumbo rolls slit in a third country should be classified as French TTR for antidumping purposes, and, therefore, within the scope of this investigation and any resulting order. Petitioner submitted comments on this request on October 28, 2003, December 5, 2003, January 5 and January 16, 2004. According to petitioner, substantial transformation does not take place because: 1) both slit and jumbo rolls have the same essential physical characteristics ( e.g. , both have the same chemical properties that make them suitable for thermal transfer printing); 2) large capital investments are required for coating and ink-making (production stages prior to slitting), but not for slitting; 3) coating and ink-making require significantly more skill, expertise, and research and development; and, 4) the majority of costs and value comes from coating and ink-making. Petitioner states that, for purposes of this issue, slitting and packaging do not account for a substantial amount of the total cost of finished TTR (depending on the degree of automation and whether new or secondhand equipment is involved); and that a slitting operation requires a small amount of capital, compared with a large amount of capital required for a coating and ink-making operation.

Armor, the sole respondent in this investigation, argues that slitting does constitute substantial transformation, and, therefore, that the Department should determine that French jumbo rolls slit in a third country should be considered to have originated in that third country for antidumping purposes. Armor submitted comments on November 26, 2003, December 12, 2003, and January 9, 2004. Armor argues that substantial transformation does take place because: 1) slitting, and the repackaging that necessarily goes along with it, involves transforming the product into its final end-use dimensions, the insertion of one or two cores (for loading the ribbons into printers), and the addition of leaders, bridges, and trailers, which result in a new product, with a new name, new character, and new purpose; 2) petitioner excluded TTR slit to fax proportions, acknowledging the importance of slitting; and, 3) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Court of International Trade (CIT) have determined that slitting and repackaging amount to substantial transformation. DigiPrint, in comments received on January 2, 2004, argues that the record of this investigation indicates that slitting and packaging account for a large amount (34%) of total cost, indicating substantial transformation.

The Department has considered several factors in determining whether a substantial transformation has taken place, thereby changing a product's country of origin. These have included: the value added to the product; the sophistication of the third-country processing; the possibility of using the third-country processing as a low cost means of circumvention; and, most prominently, whether the processed product falls into a different class or kind of product when compared to the downstream product. While all of these factors have been considered by the Department in the past, it is the last factor which is consistently examined and emphasized. 1 When the upstream and processed products fall into different classes or kinds of merchandise, the Department generally finds that this is indicative of substantial transformation. See, e.g., Cold-Rolled 1993 , 58 FR at 37066.

Accordingly, the Department has generally found that substantial transformation has taken place when the upstream and downstream products fall within two different “classes or kinds” of merchandise: ( see, e.g. , steel slabs converted to hot-rolled band; wire rod converted through cold-drawing to wire; cold-rolled steel converted to corrosion resistant steel; flowers arranged into bouquets; automobile chassis converted to limousines). 2 Conversely, the Department almost invariably determines substantial transformation has not taken place when both products are within the same “class or kind” of merchandise: ( see, e.g. , computer memory components assembled and tested; hot-rolled coils pickled and trimmed; cold-rolled coils converted into cold-rolled strip coils; rusty pipe fittings converted to rust free, painted pipe fittings; green rod cleaned, coated, and heat treated into wire rod). 3 In this case, both jumbo and slit TTR are within the same class or kind of merchandise, as defined in the Department's initiation and as defined for this final determination.

While slitting and packaging might account for 34 percent of the total cost of production, 4 the processes and equipment involved do not amount to substantial transformation of the jumbo TTR for antidumping purposes. According to information submitted by petitioner, and not rebutted by any party to this investigation, a slitting operation requires only a fraction of the capital investment required for a coating and ink-making operation. 5 Moreover, the ITC noted in this investigation that the “slitting and packaging process is not particularly complex, especially as compared to the jumbo TTR production process.” ITC Report , at 7. The ITC also noted that the primary cost involved in a slitting and packaging operation is not capital cost, but direct labor cost, which, we note, might be hired cheaply in a third country. Id. at 14. Thus, it appears that a slitting operation could be established in a third country for circumvention purposes with far greater ease than a coating and ink-making operation.

Finally, the ITC concluded that, while slit and jumbo TTR are like products, U.S. slitting and packaging operations (or “converters”) were not part of the domestic industry for purposes of this investigation, “for lack of sufficient production related activities.” Id . at 13. The implication of the ITC's conclusion, based on its extensive multi-pronged analysis, is that TTR is the product of coating and ink-making, not slitting and packaging: “The production related activities of converters are insufficient for such firms to be deemed producers of the domestic like product.” Id . While we are not bound by the ITC's decisions, the ITC's determination is important to consider in this particular instance because it is based on the full participation of respondents and petitioner, whereas respondent withdrew its information from our investigation.

As the Department has stated on numerous occasions, CBP decisions regarding substantial transformation and customs regulations, referred to by respondent, are not binding on the Department, because we make these decisions with different aims in mind ( e.g. , anticircumvention). See, e.g., DRAMs , 67 FR at 70928. The Department's independent authority to determine the scope of its investigations has been upheld by the CIT. Diversified Products Corp. v. United States , 572 F. Supp. 883, 887 (CIT 1983). Presumably, a CIT decision interpreting substantial transformation in the context of CBP regulations, also cited by respondent, also is not binding on the Department.

While the other facts noted by respondent are not necessarily irrelevant to this determination, they do not overcome the conclusion indicated by the fact that the slitting and packaging of jumbo rolls into slit TTR does not create a “new and different article.” In other words, the totality of the circumstances indicates that slitting does not constitute substantial transformation for antidumping purposes. Even accepting, arguendo , DigiPrint's statement regarding the amount of total cost accounted for by slitting and packaging, and respondent's statements regarding how slitting and packaging transform the product into its final end-use form, the product still has not changed sufficiently to fall outside the class or kind of merchandise defined in this investigation. Jumbo rolls are intermediate products, and slit rolls are final, end-use products, but the transformation of an upstream product into a downstream product does not necessarily constitute “substantial transformation” and, in this case, does not, given the considerations listed above.

Similarly, in DRAMs , we decided that wafers shipped to a third country to be used in the assembly of DRAMs (subject merchandise) did not amount to substantial transformation because the wafers were the “essential” component in the product. In this case, the ITC report notes petitioner's statement, unrefuted by respondents, that “the essential characteristic of finished TTR, like that of jumbo TTR, is that of a strip of PET film coated with ink.” We agree and note that the essential characteristic is contained in the jumbo TTR imported into the third country.

Therefore, in light of this fact and the facts discussed below, we determine that slitting jumbo rolls does not constitute substantial transformation. Jumbo rolls originating in France but slit in a third country will be subject to any antidumping duties imposed on French TTR, if an antidumping duty order on such products is issued.

The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003.

In the preliminary determination, we based the dumping margin for the mandatory respondent, Armor, on adverse facts available pursuant to sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Act. The use of adverse facts available was warranted in this investigation because Armor withdrew its questionnaire responses from the record. See Preliminary Determination , 68 FR at 71069. The withdrawal of such information significantly impeded this proceeding because the Department cannot determine a margin without responses to our questionnaires. In addition, we found that Armor failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. We assigned Armor the highest margin listed in the notice of initiation. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Thermal Transfer Ribbons From France, Japan and the Republic of Korea , 68 FR 38305 (June 27, 2003). A complete explanation of the selection, corroboration, and application of adverse facts available can be found in the preliminary determination. See Preliminary Determination , 68 FR at 71070-71.Nothing has changed since the preliminary determination was issued that would affect the Department's selection and application of facts available. No interested parties commented on any aspect of our application of adverse facts available. Accordingly, for the final determination, we continue to use the highest margin stated in the notice of initiation for Armor. The “All Others” rate remains unchanged as well.

We received no comments from interested parties in response to our preliminary determination in this investigation, except for the comments on the country-of-origin issue, which are fully addressed above. We received no case briefs or rebuttal briefs. We did not hold a hearing because none was requested.

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of TTR exported from France that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond based on the estimated dumping margins shown below. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.We determine that the following dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determination. The ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether imports of subject merchandise from France are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

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

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

NIST may enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (“CRADA”) with the licensee to perform further research on the invention for purposes of commercialization. The invention available for licensing is:

Title: Method For Producing Metal Particles by Spray Pyrolysis Using a Co-solvent and Apparatus Therefore.

Abstract: Gas-to-particle conversion processes have been used to produce various micro and nanoscale metal powders because of their convenient process characteristics. Recently, hydrogen gas approaches for reducing metal oxides made from metal precursor aerosols in gas-to-particle conversion processes were developed by several research groups. However, aerosol decomposition reactions may be very dangerous at high temperatures due to the explosive potential of hydrogen at high concentrations in the presence of oxygen. This invention is a novel process based on the use of a co-solvent for preparing pure metal nanoparticles under safe conditions in a high-temperature aerosol decomposition reactor. The resulting copper nanoparticles prepared from copper nitrate using a nitrogen carrier gas at 600° C with a 3.3 second resident time are pure. X-ray diffraction is used for measuring particle composition and a transmission electron microscope (TEM) is used for imaging to determine particle morphology.

The Council will hold its 115th regular public meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda

Advisory Panel/Scientific and Statistical Committee/Habitat Advisory Panel Membership

Budget: 2002, 2003, 2004-5

Pending Travel and Contracts

Other Business

Study on Costs and Earnings Trap Fishery - Juan Agar

Southeast Data and Review (SEDAR) - John Carmichael

Lobster Assessment - David Die

Table 14

Closure Grammanic Bank

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands

NOAA

U.S. Coast Guard

March 30th, 2004

The meetings are open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Simultaneous translation will be provided (English-Spanish). Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified 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 Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-2577, telephone: (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Council's Advisory Panel will begin at 8 a.m., Monday, March 29, and continue through Saturday, April 3rd, 2004. The Scientific and Statistical Committee will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, March 29, and continue through Wednesday, March 31, 2004.

The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, March 31 continuing through Tuesday April 6. All meetings are open to the public except executive sessions. The Enforcement Committee will meet Monday, March 29.

Council Plenary Session: The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.

1. Reports

(a) Executive Director's Report

(b) NMFS Report

(c) Enforcement Report

(d) Coast Guard Report

(e) Alaska Department of Fish & Game Report

(f) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Report

2. Draft Programmatic Supplemental Environment Impact Statement (DPSEIS): (a) Final action on Groundfish Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; (b) Final Review of Groundfish Fishery Management Plan.

3. Habitat Area Particular Concern (HAPC): Receive report from Plan Team on HAPC proposals.

4. Aleutian Island Pollock: Initial Review of analysis to establish Adak pollock allocation.

5. Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Groundfish Rationalization: Discuss State water management issues.

6. Improved Retention/Improved Utilization (IR/IU): Receive progress report on Amendment 80 and provide input as necessary.

7. Observer Program: (a) Receive Observer Advisory Committee report; (b) Receive update on analysis and provide input as necessary.

8. Community Development Quota (CDQ): (a) Receive report on status of Bering Sea Aleutian Island Amendment 71; (b) Discuss fishery management issues.

9. National/Regional bycatch plans: Receive update.

10. Scallop Fishery Management Plan: Receive update and develop alternatives to modify the Licence Limitation Program.

11. Staff Tasking: Review tasking and provide direction to staff.

12. Other Business.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, these issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during the meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda 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 action to address the emergency.

Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC): The SSC agenda will include the following issues:

1. Draft Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DPSEIS)

2. HAPC

3. Aleutian Island Pollock

4. National/Regional bycatch plans.

5. Scallop Fishery Management Plan

Advisory Panel: The Advisory Panel will address the same agenda issues as the Council.

Enforcement Committee: The Enforcement Committee will meet during each meeting of the Council to discuss enforcement issues or concerns related to any subject on the Council agenda.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at 907-271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

The purpose of the Committee meeting is to formulate and recommend a groundfish information management policy to the Council. The recommended policy will categorize the types of and sources of information in use for groundfish management, consider what new types of information may be available in the future, specify review requirements for new information before it can become part of the decision-making process, consider guidelines for replacing older information with new or updated information, and recommend an implementation time line that facilitates the groundfish management process while considering the magnitude of potential harm to the species of concern and disruption to the fishery that can result from untimely incorporation of new information.

No management actions will be decided by the Committee. The Committee's role will be development of recommendations for consideration by the Council at its April meeting in Sacramento, CA.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the Committee for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Committee action during this meeting. Committee 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 Committee's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This 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 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The purpose of the Committee meeting is to develop options for allocations and other management measures for the 2005-06 Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. The Committee will discuss the types of provisions that may be necessary to prevent further overfishing, to reduce bycatch of overfished species in the various groundfish fisheries, and to reduce bycatch in non-groundfish fisheries. In addition, the Committee may evaluate current catch levels of overfished groundfish species and propose inseason adjustments. No management actions will be decided by the Committee. The Committee's role will be the development of recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Fishery Management Council at its April meeting in Sacramento, CA.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the Committee for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Committee action during this meeting. Committee 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 Committee's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This 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 5 days prior to the meeting date.

File No. 655-1652. On October 16, 2001, notice was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 52594) that a request for a scientific research permit to take northern right whales had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Permit No. 65-1652-00 authorizes Dr. Kraus to conduct research involving monitoring the health and status of North Atlantic right whales, including aerial and shipboard surveys, photo-identification, remote biopsy sampling, attachment of scientific instruments, and blubber ultrasound measurements. Up to 300 whales per year may be taken for up to five years.

File No. 775-1600. On October 27, 2000, notice was published in the Federal Register (65 FR 64432) that a request for a scientific research permit to take seven species of baleen whale, 21 species of odontocetes, and four species of pinnipeds had been submitted by the above-named organization. Permit No. 775-1600-00 was issued on March 6, 2001 (66 FR 14135) and subsequently amended six times for various reasons. Permit No. 775-1600-00 and its subsequent amendments prohibited biopsy sampling of right whale calves less than six months old and females accompanied by such calves. The Permit Holders requested reconsideration of this prohibition and provided additional information in support of their request to biopsy sample calves of any age (except newborns) and females accompanied by such calves. NMFS did not publish a notice in the Federal Register regarding receipt of the request because the original application, which was available for public review and comment, requested such authorization. The requested permit amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Issuance of this permit and permit amendment, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit and permit amendment (1) were applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

The ASLC requests a 5-year permit to continue its research on three permanently captive Steller sea lions held by the ASLC to investigate stress responses, endocrine and immune system function, and seasonal variations to normal biological parameters such as mass and body composition, and to conduct research and development of external tags and attachments for future deployment in the field. These animals will also be used to develop and test less intrusive methods that can be used in the field. Authorization is requested: (1) for attachment of scientific instruments, stomach temperature telemetry, stable isotope administration via food or intravenously, oral administration of deuterium labeled vitamins, and video/photographic/ radiographic/digital/thermal imaging; (2) for collecting morphometric data, blubber ultrasound measurements, blood samples, epidermal and mucosal swabs, blubber biopsies, and bioenergetic and metabolic measurements; (3) for conducting bioelectrical impedance analysis, hormone stimulation trials, food trials/dietary manipulation/fasting studies, underwater foraging and drag trials; and (4) for determining body condition via D20 injections and total blood volume via Evans blue dye injection.

Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.

Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

This package contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-1400; (2) Package Title: Compliance Statement: Energy/Water Conservation Standards for Appliances; (3) Purpose: DOE will collect information from manufacturers to verify that products covered under the Act comply with required energy conservation and water conservation standards prior to distributing these products in commerce. DOE will make a determination of compliance by examining manufacturer's compliance statements and certification reports that each basic model meets the applicable energy and water conservation standard as prescribed in section 325 of the Act. (4) Estimated Number of Respondents: 48; (5) Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,347; (6) Number of Collections: The package contains 14 information and/or recordkeeping requirements.

Statutory Authority: EPCA mandates the use of uniform energy and water conservation standards and testing procedures for covered products. DOE has previously established compliance reporting requirements in § 430.62 of title 10 CFR 430. The authority for certification reporting under part 430 is section 326(d) of part B of title III of EPCA which states:

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On August 20, 2001, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA-249 authorizing Exelon to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer using certain international electric transmission facilities. That two-year authorization expired on October 15, 2003.

On January 30, 2004, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) received an application from Exelon to renew its authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada for a period of five (5) years. Exelon requests that, if DOE approves this application, the order authorizing it to export be made effective as of October 15, 2003, because Exelon has inadvertently continued to trade power since that date. Exelon also has requested expedited processing of this application. Accordingly, DOE has shortened the public comment period to 15 days.

Exelon proposes to arrange for the delivery of electric energy to Canada over the existing international transmission facilities owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, International Transmission Company, Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power Inc., Minnkota Power Cooperative, New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Northern States Power, and Vermont Electric Transmission Company.

The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized by Exelon, as more fully described in the application, has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's rules of practice and procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above.

Comments on the Exelon application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-249-A. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Colleen E. Hicks, Attorney, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 300 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by the DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy home page at http://www.fe.de.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy home page, select “Electricity Regulation,” and then “Pending Procedures” from the options menus.

An integrated assessment of climate change is defined here as the analysis of the human (including economics), physical, and biological aspects of climate change from the cause, such as greenhouse gas emissions, through impacts, such as changes in unmanaged ecosystems, sea level rise, and altered growing conditions for crops. The primary emphasis in an integrated assessment is to represent all three aspects in such a way that the costs and benefits of climate change can be evaluated. Integrated assessments are commonly based on simulated scenarios using a computer model.

A description of integrated assessment may be found in volume 3 of the report “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001”. The reference is: Ferenc Toth, Mark Mwandosya, John Christiansen, Jae Edmonds, Brian Flannery, Carlos Gay-Garcia, Hoesung Lee, Klaus Meyer-Abich, Elena Nikitina, Atiq Rahman, Richard Richels, Ye Riqui, Arturo Villavicencio, Yoko Wake, and John Weyant, “Decision-Making Frameworks,” Chapter 10 in Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Cambridge University Press, 2001 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm).

Integrated assessment models are used to evaluate, for example, specific policy options. This notice solicits research to develop and improve the methods and tools used to assess the costs and benefits of climate change. The research funded as a result of this solicitation will be judged in part on its potential to develop and improve integrated assessment methods and models needed to support policy analysis and development. Policy analysis and development itself will not be funded.

The program will concentrate support on the topics described below. Applications that involve development of analytical models and computer codes will be judged partly on the basis of whether they include proposed tasks to document and make the models and model codes available to the community. The following is a list of topics that are high priority. Topics proposed by principal investigators that fall outside this list will require a preapplication and a strong justification to be considered for funding. Research projects in these elements are intended to fill critical gaps in current integrated assessments.

Research to develop and improve methods and models for assessing the benefits and costs of innovation and diffusion of technologies that affect the emission of greenhouse gases is a primary focus of the Integrated Assessment of Climate Change Research Program. Assumptions regarding technology innovation and diffusion are some of the most important contributors to overall uncertainty in predicting future emissions of greenhouse gases from technologies. A key area of interest is research to improve the ability of the integrated assessment models to represent technological changes that directly or indirectly affect greenhouse gas emissions as a function of variables that are determined by the model (“endogenizing technological change”) rather than postulated as static input to the model.

One particular difficulty in modeling technological change is in representing the penetration of new technologies. Over the 21st century, the typical timeframe simulated using the integrated assessment models, technologies need to be invented, innovated upon, and diffused to the sectors in which they are used. Applications are sought that address issues such as: (1) The rate at which technological changes take place, (2) identification of factors that affect the rates, (3) the representation of the adoption of new technologies in which the model assigns a price lower for the new technology than for competing technologies, and (4) whether, and if so, how, historical precedents can be used to better understand technology innovation and diffusion processes and rates and therefore lead to better modeling of such processes and rates.

The rate and nature of technology diffusion from the more-developed nations to developing nations is not well understood. Predicting economic structural changes in developing nations that influence technology diffusion is also problematical. Much of the uncertainty in integrated assessment models comes from the difficulty in predicting the response of the energy sector and greenhouse gas emissions in developing nations to both regulation and technological innovations in more-developed nations. Applications are sought to understand how historical precedents can be used to understand and model the future movement of technologies across national borders.

Applications are also sought for research that will help provide tools to address other policy-relevant questions, such as the following, as they relate to greenhouse gas emissions:

• What effect would various policy options have on “carbon leakage”, the movement of emissions of greenhouse gases away from nations with relatively regulated emissions to ones with relatively unregulated emissions?

• How can the impact of research and development on invention, innovation, and adoption of technologies that emit greenhouse gases be simulated and modeled quantitatively?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has published a Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm#sprep). These scenarios describe various possible directions for future development and are used as input into the Integrated Assessment models. The scenarios include projections of economic growth, population dynamics, and technology development that vary by time and locale.

This notice solicits research to improve on the existing methodologies for developing emission scenarios and to enhance the current SRES scenarios. Enhancing the current SRES scenarios should make use of recent updates to demographic projections. Forecasts of productivity growth, particularly in lesser developed countries, should cover the range of likely outcomes. Some scenarios should represent possible policy interventions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as mitigation options that would lead to various stable atmospheric concentration levels. Forecasts of technology improvements should be tied to assumptions regarding mitigation options.

It is anticipated that up to $2,000,000 will be available for multiple awards to be made in Fiscal Year 2004 and early Fiscal Year 2005, in the categories described above, contingent on the availability of appropriated funds. Additional funds will be made available for a similar program announcement to the DOE National Laboratories. Applications may request project support up to three years, with out-year support contingent on the availability of funds, progress of the research and programmatic needs. Annual budgets for project applications are expected to range from $50,000 to $175,000 total costs. Funds for this research will come from the Integrated Assessment Research Program. DOE is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with preparation or submission of applications.

A preapplication is strongly encouraged (but not required) prior to submission of a full application. The preapplication should list the Principal Investigator's name, institution, address, telephone number, and e-mail address; title of the project; and proposed collaborators. The preapplication should consist of a one to two page narrative describing the research project objectives and methods of accomplishment. A response to each preapplication, discussing the potential program relevance of a formal application, generally will be communicated within 15 days of receipt. There is no deadline for the submission of preapplications, but applicants should allow sufficient time to meet the application deadline. Please note that notification of a successful preapplication is not an indication that an award will be made in response to the formal application.

Applications will be subjected to formal merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following evaluation criteria which are listed in descending order of importance codified at 10 CFR 605.10(d):

1. Scientific and/or technical merit of the project;

2. Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach;

3. Competency of applicant's personnel and adequacy of proposed resources;

4. Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget.

The evaluation process will include program policy factors such as the relevance of the proposed research to the terms of the announcement and the agency's programmatic needs. Note, external peer reviewers are selected with regard to both their scientific expertise and the absence of conflict-of-interest issues. Both Federal and non-Federal reviewers will often be used, and submission of an application constitutes agreement that this is acceptable to the investigator(s) and the submitting institution.

Information about the development and submission of applications, eligibility, limitations, evaluation, selection process, and other policies and procedures may be found in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program and 10 CFR part 605. Electronic access to SC's Financial Assistance Application Guide and required forms is made available via the World Wide Web: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html .

In addition, for this notice, the research description must be 15 pages or less (10-point or larger font), including figures and tables but excluding attachments, and must include a one-page summary of the proposed project. The summary should appear on a separate page (page 1) and must include the proposed-project title; name of the applicant and the applicant's address, phone number, and e-mail address; names of any co-investigators; and the proposed-project summary. Attachments should include literature references cited in the research description, curriculum vitae for each investigator (2-page maximum per investigator), a listing of all current and pending Federal support for each investigator, and letters of intent when collaborations are part of the proposed research.

For researchers who do not have access to the World Wide Web (www), please contact Karen Carlson, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Climate Change Research Division, SC-74/Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290, phone: (301) 903-3338, fax: (301) 903-8519, E-mail: karen.carlson@science.doe.gov; for hard copies of background material mentioned in this solicitation.

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

 Special Election of NNMCAB Vice-Chair (if applicable)

This tentative agenda is subject to change in advance of the meeting. Please get a copy of the final agenda at the meeting.

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

Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available at the Public Reading Room located at the Board's office at 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, Santa Fe, NM. Hours of operation for the Public Reading Room are 9 a.m.-4 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Minutes will also be made available by writing or calling Menice Manzanares at the Board's office address or telephone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http:www.nnmcab.org.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis with respect to the high energy physics research program.

Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the following:

Sunday, April 18, 2004, and Monday, April 19, 2004:

• Discussion of Department of Energy High Energy Physics Programs;

• Discussion of National Science Foundation Elementary Particle Physics Program;

• Reports on and Discussions of Topics of General Interest in High Energy Physics;

• Public comment (10-minute rule).

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Panel, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should contact Bruce Strauss, 301-903-3705 or Bruce.Strauss@science.doe.gov (e-mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Panel will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 90 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The Mentoring Children of Prisoners grant program is administered through the Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB). Through the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, FYSB awards grants to community- and faith-based organizations that provide children and youth of incarcerated parents with mentors. Each mentoring program is designed to ensure that mentors provide young people with safe and trusting relationships; healthy messages about life and social behavior; appropriate guidance from a positive adult role model; and opportunities for increased participation in education, civic service, and community activities.

FYSB is currently soliciting for applications to carry out the mentoring activities described in the program announcement that was published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2004. Applications for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program are due April 23, 2004.

MANY will provide technical assistance to interested parties about the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program and grant opportunity through workshops. You must register for the workshops in advance through the contact listed above. If you require special accommodations to attend or participate in this meeting, please provide information regarding your requirements at the time of registration.

Workshop meeting places and times:

Pursuant to Section 814 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b-1, under the statute, ANA is required to provide members of the public an opportunity to comment on proposed changes in interpretive rules, statements of general policy, and rules of agency procedure or practice and to give notice of the final adoption of such changes at least 30 days before the changes become effective.

ANA published a Notice of Public Comment (NOPC) in the Federal Register (68 FR 64685) on November 14, 2003 on the proposed ANA policy and program clarifications, modifications, and activities for FY 2004. The NOPC closed December 14, 2003. ANA received comments from three different entities: (A) one comment was submitted from an Alaska Village Council; (B) three comments were received from a national Native American non-profit organization, and (C) several editorial comments were received from an individual. ANA has considered all the public comments received and has included clarifications and modifications reflecting several of the comments in the SY 2004 SEDS, Native Language and Environmental Program Announcements.

For FY 2004, ANA will have one closing date for the SEDS Program or other special initiative undertaken pursuant to Section 803(a) of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 2991b, and one closing date each for the Alaska SEDS Program, Native Language program, and the Environmental program. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1972, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

ANA's program announcements will now require that all applications for funding be “received by” ANA by the closing date. Consistent with past practices, ANA will not acknowledge receipt of applications. Previously, ANA accepted applications for funding if they were postmarked on or before the closing date. The change to receipt of the application by the closing date is expected to reduce disputes regarding postmarks and late-arriving applications. This change will also ensure ANA has the appropriate number of skilled peer panel reviewers available to review submitted applications. Applications received after the published closing date as stipulated in this published announcement will not be considered. The new program announcement closing schedules will allow ANA to release all funding to communities earlier in the fiscal year; provide applicants additional time to receive agency comments and seek free technical assistance before the next competition in the program. Additionally, ANA grantees will have the opportunity to implement projects in a timely manner, recruit personnel to support the grantee's objectives; and decrease the number of requests for no cost grant extensions. This modification will afford ANA the opportunity to perform grant administration and program monitoring and evaluation activities that support new and non-competing continuation grants. (Legal authority: Sections 833(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Discussion of Comment: The one comment received on this section expressed concern with the change associated with the receipt of applications from “postmarked by” to “received by.” The commenter expressed concern that unreliable mail service delivery from remote areas will cause undue stress on organizations.

Response: During the previous competitive cycle, ANA performed an assessment of all phases and benchmarks of the pre-award process to determine areas of needed efficiency. The determination to change from “postmarked by” to “received by” was given much consideration, especially considering some ANA applicants are located in isolated communities. This policy will be an adjustment for all applicants, however the outcomes of improved reader selection, the elimination of disputes associated with postmarks and late-arriving applications, and other pre-award activities are more beneficial to applicants than the re-instatement of the “post-marked by” policy. ANA intends to have the program announcements published with sufficient time allowed for applicants to prepare and submit an application in a timely manner. Therefore, the requirement for applications receipt will remain intact.

The program announcement and the application materials are available on the ANA Web site at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ana. The material on the Web site is provided as information only. ANA makes all reasonable efforts to assure that the Web site is complete and accurate. The applicant bears sole responsibility, to assure that the copy downloaded and/or printed from any source is accurate and complete. In case of a conflict between the content of material downloaded from the website and the material appearing the Federal Register , the notice published in the Federal Register shall take precedence. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

The format of the application for funding is now standardized. The new application format will help applicants focus on the type of information and data required to support an application for funding. ANA will implement a page limitation requirement to enable a thorough review of the application. (See 4(a) and (b)). ANA will implement these page requirements with a limit on the number of pages for each section. These modifications to the announcement will reduce the amount of documentation applicants need to submit and it will both strengthen and streamline the peer panel review process to allow reviewers to focus on the project and applications content. Additionally, program announcement standardization will prepare ANA and applicants for the Federal Government's Electronic Grant Application submission initiative and process. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

4. (a) Organization and Preparation of Application: Due to the intensity and pace of the application review and evaluation process, ANA has standardized the application submission format. The new application submission format for the SEDS program is included in this notice.

4. (b) ANA Application Format: ANA will now require all applications to be labeled with a Section Heading in compliance with the format provided in the program announcement. This format applies to all applicants submitting applications for funding in the programs covered by this notice. All pages submitted (including Government Forms, certifications and assurances) should be numbered consecutively. The paper size shall be 8 1/2 x 11 inches, line spacing shall be a space and a half (1.5 line spacing), printed only on one side, and have a half-inch margin on all sides of the paper. The font size should be no smaller than 12-point and the font type shall be Times New Roman. These requirements do not apply to the project Abstract Form, Letters of Commitment, the Table of Contents, and the Objective Work Plan. A complete application for assistance under ANA's Program Announcements consists of Three Parts. Part One is the SF 424, Required Government Forms, and other required documentation noted in the program announcement. Part Two of the application is a description of the project's substance. This section of the application may not exceed 45 pages. Part Three of the application is the Appendix. This section of the application may not exceed 20 pages (the exception to this 20-page limit applies only to projects that require, if relevant to the project, a Business Plan or any Third-Party Agreements). (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3.)

4. (c) Explanation of Project Period: Under ANA's new program announcements, project periods will be 12 months, 17 months, 24 months, or 36 months. ANA currently funds projects spanning a 36-month period. Exception: Native Language Planning Grants (Category I) will continue to be 12 or 17 month project periods. This notice clarifies the specific project periods that ANA will fund. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2291b and 2991b-3)

4. (d) Application Review Criteria: ANA has expanded the review criteria to allow for a more equitable distribution of points during the application review and competition process. In the FY 2004 Program Announcement, ANA will improve the competitive review process through the use of six criteria that will evenly distribute evaluation points. The use of six criteria will standardize the review of each application and distribute the number of points more equitably. Based on the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Uniform Project Description, ANA's criteria categories are: Project Introduction; Objectives and Need for Assistance; Project Approach; Organizational Capacity; Results and Benefits Expected; and Budget and Budget Narrative. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2291b and 2991b-3)

ACF supports and fosters strong families and healthy communities. In the FY 2004 Program Announcements, ANA has identified Program Areas of Interest to complement other Health and Human Services and ACF programs. For example, in ANA's SEDS program the Economic Development Areas of Interest support activities that will provide business and employment opportunities and options necessary to build the foundation of healthy communities and strong families. Under Social Development, the program areas of interest support families, elders, youth development, healthy marriage, and individuals with disabiliites. Furthermore, under Governance, funding may be used for leadership and management training or to assist eligible applicants in the development of laws, regulations, codes, policies, and practices that support and promote community-based activities that lead to self-sufficiency. The program Areas of Interest are projects that ANA considers supportive to Native American communities. Although eligibility for funding is not restricted to projects of the type listed under this program announcement, these Areas of Interest are ones which ANA sees as particularly beneficial to the develpment of healthy Native American communities. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b)

ANA's program announcement will not offer an opportunity for applicants to choose from six project performance indicators. For example, indicators may be: The number of jobs created or retained; the strengthening and modification of tribal government activities such as the implementation of codes and ordinances; the number of people trained; the dollar amount of non-federal resources leveraged per grantee; the number and type of community, federal and state partnerships involved in the project; the dollar amount of private sector investsment integrated into the project; and the number of community-based small businesses established. This quantitative and qualitative date will be used to monitor grantee performance and to communicate to the public and Congress on the impact and success of locally funded ANA projects. ( Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 US.C. 2991b and 2991b-3 )

Correction: Within the ANA Results and Benefits Criteria, a redundant performance indicator was deleted. The indicator removed was “number of families served”. The agency considered that this information was being addressed in a more comprehensive indicator: “the number of children, youth, families or elders assisted or participating”.

ANA does not fund:

• Activities in support of litigation against the United States Government that are unallowable under OMB Circulars A-87 and A-122. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d), and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b, and 2991b-3, 45 CFR 1336.50(a); 45 CFR 74.27 and 92.22; OMB Circular A-122, Attachment B, Paragraph 10(g) and OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, Paragraph 14(b))

• Duplicative projects or does not allow any one community to receive a disproportionate share of the funds available for award. When making decisions on awards of grants the Agency will consider whether the project is essentially identical or similar, in whole or significant part, to projects in the same community previously funded or being funded under the same competition. The Agency will also consider whether the grantee is already receiving funding for a SEDs, Language, or Environmental project from ANA. The Agency will also take into account in making funding decisions whether a proposed project would require funding on an indefinite or recurring basis. This determination will be made after it is determined whether the application meets the requirements for eligibility as set forth in 45 CFR 1336, Subpart C, but before funding decisions are complete. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Discussion of Comment: The writer expressed concern with the policy statement on award determination. If ANA is going to consider whether the proposed project is essentially identical or similar, in whole or in part, to projects in the same community previously funded under the same competition, they would be competing with their consortia membership for ANA funding.

Response: The policy statement read in its entirety references a policy that ANA does not fund duplicative projects within the same identified community that are currently being funded or were previously funded by ANA. The intent of the policy is to not restrict consortia services to its membership and is not intended to create problematic competition within communities. It is ANA's consideration that this policy supports an internal control measure to ensure the effective use of limited federal funds by the elimination of financial awards for services and/or activities already supported by ANA. The funding restriction policy will remain intact.

Discussion of Comment: The writer also wanted a definition of “projects that would require funding on an indefinite or recurring basis”.

Response: ANA provides financial assistance for projects that are either complete or self-sustaining or funded by other than ANA funds at the end of the project period. Proposed projects that cannot demonstrate completion, or be self-sustaining or funded by other than ANA funds at the end of the proposed project period will not be considered for funding.

• Projects in which a grantee would provide training and/or technical assistance (T/TA) to other Tribes or Native American organizations that are otherwise eligible to apply. However, ANA will fund T/TA requested by a grantee for its own use or for its members' use (as in the case of a consortium), when the T/TA is necessary to carry out project objectives. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3; 45 CFR 1336.33(b)(2))

Discussion of Comment: The writer expressed concerns with the statement “projects in which a grantee would provide training and/or technical assistance to other tribes or Native American organizations that are otherwise eligible to apply”.

Response: The policy statement read in its entirety allows for consortia to provide technical assistance in support of project objectives to its membership. The policy will remain intact.

• The purchase of real property or construction because those activities are not authorized by the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3; 45 CFR 1336.33(b)(7))

• Objectives or activities to support core administration activities of an organization. However, functions and activities that are clearly project related are eligible for grant funding. Under Alaska SEDS projects, ANA will consider funding core administrative capacity building projects at the village government level if the village does not have governing systems in place. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3 and 45 CFR 1336.33(b)(4))

• Costs associated with fund-raising, including financial campaigns, endowment drives, solicitation of gifts and bequests, and similar expenses incurred solely to raise capital or obtain contributions are unallowable under an ANA grant award. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3; 45 CFR 1336.50; 45 CFR 74.27; OMB Circular A-122, Attachment B, Paragraph 23; OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, Paragraph 21.)

• Major renovation or alternation because those activities are not authorized under the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended. ( Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3 )

• Projects originated and designed by consultants who provide a major role for themselves and are not members of the applicant organization, Tribe, or village. ( Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3 )

• Project activities that do not further the three interrelated ANA goals of economic development, social development and governance or meet the purpose of this program announcement. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3; 45 CFR 1336.33(b)(5))

Correction: The agency noted that the wording of the funding restriction “Project activities that do not further the three interrelated ANA goals of economic development, social development, governance or meet the purpose of this program announcement” should have read as “Project activities that do not further the three interrelated ANA goals of economic development or social development or governance, or meet the purpose of this program announcement”. The technical correction allows the applicant to indicate on the ANA abstract form which one of the three inter-related ANA goals is primarily being addressed.

Applicants must comply with the following Administrative Policies:

• An applicant must provide a 20% non-federal match of the approved project costs. Applications originating from American Samoa, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are covered under section 501(d) of Pub. L. 95-134, as amended (48 U.S.C. 1469a), under which HHS waives any requirement for matching funds under $200,000 (including in-kind contributions). (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3; 45 CFR 1336.50(b))

• An application from a Tribe, Alaska Native Village or Native American organization must be from the governing body. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

• A non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status at the time of submission. The non-profit organization shall submit one of the following verifiable documents: (i) A copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's(IRS) most recent list of tax exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code or (ii) a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, or (iii) a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State or federally-recognized Tribe in which the corporation or association is domiciled. Organizations incorporating in American Samoa are cautioned that the Samoan government relies exclusively upon IRS determination of non-profit status; therefore, articles of incorporation approved by the Samoan government do not establish non-profit status for the purpose of ANA eligibility. (Legal Authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

• If the applicant, other than a Tribe or an Alaska Native Village government, is proposing a project benefiting Native Americans or Native Alaskans, or both, it must provide assurance that its duly elected or appointed board of directors is representative of the community to be served. To establish compliance, an applicant should provide supporting documentation and assurance that its duly elected or appointed board of directors is majority Native American. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3; 45 CFR 1336.33(a))

• Applicants must describe how the proposed project objectives and activities relate to a locally determined strategy. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

• Proposed projects must consider the maximum use of all available community-based resources. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Discussion of Comment: The writer expressed concern with the statement “Proposed projects must consider the maximum use of all available community-based resources.” It is interpreted by the writer that this policy will create a hardship for Native communities with limited community resources.

Response: This statement is intended to ensure that the applicant assesses the availability of other community resources and any opportunities and options to partner with other community-based programs. Applicants with scarce community resources will not be penalized. The policy statement will remain intact.

• Proposed projects must present a strategy to overcome the challenges that hinder movement toward self-sufficiency in the community. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

• Applicants proposing an Economic Development project should address the project's viability. A business plan, if applicable, must be included to describe the project's feasibility, cash flow, and approach for the implementation and marketing of the business. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

• ANA will not accept applications from tribal components, which are tribally authorized divisions of a larger Tribe, which are not approved by the governing body of the Tribe. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3; 45 CFR 1336.33(a))

On June 27, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget published in the Federal Register a new Federal policy applicable to all Federal grant applicants, after giving notice in the Federal Register on June 27, 2002 and providing opportunity for public comment. The policy requires all Federal grant applicants to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when applying for Federal grants or cooperative agreements on or after October 1, 2003. The DUNS number will be required whether an applicant is submitting a paper application or using the government-wide electronic portal ( http://www.Grants.Gov ). A DUNS number will be required for every application for a new award or renewal/continuation of an award, including applications or plans under mandatory grant programs, submitted on or after October 1, 2003. A DUNS number may be acquired at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711 or you may request a number on-line at http://www.dnb.com.

The Administration for Children and Families through the Administration for Native Americans supports and fosters strong families and healthy communities under four initiatives. ANA encourages applications from eligible community and faith-based organizations that (1) provide services directly to Native American people; (2) organizations that support rural communities; (3) provide prevention and intervention programs for youth and families; and (4) promote healthy relationships to strengthen families.

ANA's program announcements will emphasize partnerships and community-based projects. The intent of this change is to increase the number of grants to local community organizations, to encourage new partnerships with public and private community-based organizations. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

The ANA will increase funding ceilings under the Native Language program for Category I Planning and Category II Design and Implementation grants. The minimum grant amount for Native Language grants will be $25,000. The ceiling amount for Category I grants will increase from $60,000 to $100,000. The ceiling amount for Category II grants will increase from $150,000 to $175,000. The increase in funding amounts for Native Language grants will support the effective assessment of native languages. It will also provide applicants the opportunity to incorporate new technologies necessary to design, implement, and preserve Native language and culture. Grants awarded under the Native Language program that produce audio or print media will now include a stipulation that a copy of the product be provided to ANA for the Language Repository. Federally-recognized Tribes have the option to not submit project products. The funding ceiling for Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) will be reduced from $1 million to $500,000. The minimum grant award amount will be $25,000. This adjustment of the minimum and maximum funding levels is due to the demand for SEDS project funding. These changes will result in additional community-based social and economic development project grant awards under the SEDS program. The Environmental Program announcement includes a suggested threshold and ceiling on proposed projects. For FY 2004 these amounts will be considered as guidelines only. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Applicants may apply for projects of up to 36 months in duration. A multi-year project, one extending more than 12 months or 17 months, affords grantees the opportunity to undertake more complex and in-depth projects. Applicants are encouraged to develop multi-year projects. However, applicants should note that a multi-year project is a project on a single theme that requires more than 12 or 17 months to complete. It is not a series of unrelated projects presented in chronological order over a three-year period. Funding after the first budget period of a multi-year project will be non-competitive. However, multi-year funding will be contingent upon: (1) The availability of Federal funds; (2) the grantee's progress to achieve the objectives and activities outlined in the Objective Work Plan; (3) ANA's continued belief that the project is in the public interest; and (4) the grantee is in compliance with applicable statutory and grant reporting requirements. Multi-year grant awards are subject to the availability of funds and a determination by ANA that the grantee has successfully completed its prior year objectives. Exception: Native Language Category I: Planning Grants will remain 12 or 17 month projects. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

ANA will accept applications for funding and award grants to multiple organizations located in the same geographic area, provided the activities are not duplicative of previously funded ANA projects in the same geographic area or to the same grantee. Previously, under each competitive program area, ANA accepted one application that served or impacted a reservation, Tribe or Native American community. The reason for this change is to expand and support large Native American rural and urban communities that provide a variety of services in the same geographic area. Although Tribes are limited to three simultaneous ANA grants (one each under SEDS, Native Language and Environmental programs) at any one time, this clarification allows other community-based organizations to apply for ANA funding to support on-going community-based efforts, provided the activities do not duplicate currently funded projects serving the same geographic area. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

ANA's FY 2004 program announcements will now be program specific. ANA will release separate program announcements for funding opportunities under SEDS, for Language Preservation and Maintenance, Environmental Regulatory Enhancement, and for special initiatives. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

To reduce geographic disparities, ANA's training and technical assistance curriculum and all associated handouts will be standardized. ANA's contracted training and technical assistance providers may provide training in pre-application and project development. Training will be advertised in advance, to ensure prospective applicants have the opportunity to attend. All potential ANA applicants are eligible to receive free training and technical assistance in the SEDS, Language or Environmental program areas. (Legal authority: Sections 804 of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991c)

ANA has improved the competitive review process and will now use six criteria that will evenly distribute evaluation points. The use of six criteria will standardize the review of each application and distribute the number of points more equitably. ANA's criteria categories are: Project Introduction; Objectives and Need for Assistance; Project Approach; Organizational Capacity; Results and Benefits Expected; and Budget and Budget Justification. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Discussion of Comment: The comments submitted by the individual suggested ANA modify its sentence structure, and increase the point weight on the budget section to emphasize its importance.

Response: ANA has determined that the editorial and suggested re-wording did not change the intent of the information being requested and therefore incorporated a majority of the recommended edits in the ANA evaluation criteria section of the program announcement. The ACF Uniform Project Description requires the use of specific text in program announcements and the ANA program announcement adheres to those requirements. The edits provided more clarity and cohesiveness to this section of the program announcement without changing content or intent.

Response: The comment to increase the point value of the ANA Budget criteria would result in a subsequent decrease in assigned point value in another criterion. ANA determined that it would not be beneficial to the overall project presentation as outlined to increase the point value for the budget section. The assignment of point values to evaluation criteria provides the applicant with an indication as to which criteria have more merit in the overall development of an application. ANA has determined the budget criteria point value is suitable in relation to the other merit criteria and will remain as initially established.

Technical Correction: The ANA evaluation criteria title “Introduction and Project Summary/Abstract” was re-written to state “Introduction and Project Summary/Project Abstract”. This change was added to provide clarity and indicate to the applicant that the information requested should be indicated on the ANA Project Abstract form (OMB No. 0980-0204).

The following definitions will be used in all ANA program announcements. In the FY 2004 Program Announcement, ANA clarifies many areas that have previously prompted numerous questions and application mistakes from applicants. The ANA program announcement will now include definitions for the following terms:

Authorized Representative: The person or person(s) authorized by Tribal or Organizational resolution to execute documents and other actions required by outside agencies. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Budget Period: The interval of time into which the project period is divided for budgetary or funding purposes, and for which a grant is made. A budget period usually lasts one year in a multi-year project period. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Community: A group of people residing in the same geographic area that can apply their own cultural and socio-economic values in implementing ANA's program objectives and goals. In discussing the applicant's community, the following information should be provided. (1) A description of the population segment within the community to be served or impacted; (2) the size of the community; (3) geographic description or location, including the boundaries of the community; (4) demographic data on the target population; and (5) the relationship of the community to any larger group or tribe. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Community Involvement: How the community participated in the development of the proposed project, how the community will be involved during the project implementation and after the project is completed. Evidence of community involvement can include, but is not limited to, certified petitions, public meetings minutes, surveys, needs assessments, newsletters, special meetings, public Council meetings, public committee meetings, public hearings, and annual meetings with representatives from the community. The applicant should document the community's support of the proposed project. Applications from National and Regional Indian and Native organizations should clearly demonstrate a need for the project, explain how the project originated, identify the beneficiaries, and describe and relate the actual project benefits to the community and organization. National Indian and Native organizations should also identify their membership and specifically discuss how the organization operates and impacts Native American people and communities. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Completed Project: A completed project means that the program funded by ANA is finished, self-sustaining, or funded by other than ANA funds, and the results and outcomes are achieved by the end of the project period. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Consortia—Tribal/Village: A group of Tribes or villages that join together either for long-term purposes or for the purpose of an ANA project. Applicant must identify Consortia membership. The Consortia applicant must be the recipient of the funds. A Consortia applicant must be an “eligible entity” as defined by this program announcement and the ANA regulations. Consortia applicants should include documentation (a resolution adopted pursuant to the organization's established procedures and signed by an authorized representative) from all consortia members supporting the ANA application. An application from a consortium should have goals and objectives that will create positive impacts and outcomes in the communities of its members. ANA will not fund activities by a consortium of tribes which duplicates activities for which member Tribes also receive funding from ANA. The consortium application should identify the role and responsibility of each participating consortia member and a copy of the consortia legal agreement or Memoranda of Agreement to support the proposed project. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Construction: The initial building of a facility. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Core Administration: Salaries and other expenses for those functions that support the applicant's organization as a whole or for purposes that are unrelated to the actual management or implementation of the ANA project. However, salaries and activities that are clearly related to the ANA project are eligible for grant funding. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3; 45 CFR 1336.33(b)(4).)

Economic Development: Involves the promotion of the physical, commercial, technological, industrial, and/or agricultural capacities necessary for a sustainable local community. Economic development includes activities and actions that develop sustainable, stable, and diversified private sector local economies. For example, initiatives that support employment options, business opportunities, development and formation of a community's economic infrastructure, laws and policies that result in the creation of businesses and employment options and opportunities that provide for the foundation of healthy communities and strong families. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Equipment: Tangible, non-expendable personal property, including exempt property, charged directly to the award having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. However, consistent with recipient policy, lower limits may be established. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3; 45 CFR 1336.50(a); 45 CFR 74.2 and 92.3)

Governance: Involves assistance to tribal and Alaska Native village government leaders to increase their ability to execute local control and decision-making over their resources. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Implementation Plan: The guidebook the applicant will use in meeting the results and benefits expected for the project. The Implementation Plan provides detailed descriptions of how, when, where, by whom and why activities are proposed for the project and is complemented and condensed by the Objective Work Plan. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

In-kind Contributions: In-kind contributions are property or services which benefit a federally assisted project or program and which are contributed by the grantee, non-Federal third parties without charge to the grantee, or a cost-type contractor under the grant agreement. Any proposed in-kind match must meet the applicable requirements found in 45 CFR Parts 74 and Part 92. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b and 2991b-3)

Letter of Commitment: A third party statement to document the intent to provide specific in-kind contributions or cash to support the applicant. The Letter of Commitment must state the dollar amount (if applicable), the length of time the commitment will be honored, and the conditions under which the organization will support the proposed ANA project. If a dollar amount is included, the amount must be based on market and historical rates charged and paid. The resources to be committed may be human, natural, physical, or financial, and may include other Federal and non-Federal resources. For example, a notice of award from another Federal agency committing $200,000 in construction funding to complement a proposed ANA funded pre-construction activity is evidence of a commitment. Statements about resources which have been committed to support a proposed project made in the application without supporting documentation will be disregarded. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Leveraged Resources: The total dollar value of all non-ANA resources that are committed to a proposed ANA project and are supported by documentation that exceed the 20% non-federal match required for an ANA grant. Such resources may include any natural, financial, and physical resources available within the tribe, organization, or community to assist in the successful completions of the project. An example would be a written letter of commitment from an organization that agrees to provide a supportive action, product, and service, human or financial contribution that will add to the potential success of the project. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Multi-purpose Organization: A community-based corporation whose charter specifies that the community designates the Board of Directors and/or officers of the organization through an elective procedure and that the organization functions in several different areas of concern to the members of the local Native American community. These areas are specified in the by-laws and/or policies adopted by the organization. They may include, but need not be limited to, economic, artistic, cultural, and recreational activities, and the delivery of human services such as day care, education, and training. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Multi-year Project: Encompasses a single theme and requires more than 12 or 17 months to complete. A multi-year project affords the applicant or opportunity to develop and address more complex and in-depth strategies that cannot be completed in one year. A multi-year project is a series of related objectives with activities presented in chronological order over a two or three-year period. Prior to funding the second or third year, of a multi-year grant, ANA will require verification and support documentation for the grantee that objectives and outcomes proposed in the preceding year were accomplished. Applicants proposing multi-year projects must complete and submit an Objective Work Plan (OWP) and budget with narrative for each project year, and fully described objectives to be accomplished, outcomes to be achieved, and the results and benefits to determine the successful outcomes of each budget period. ANA will review the quarterly and annual reports of grantees to determine if the grantee is meeting its goals, objectives and activities identified in the OWP. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Objective(s): Specific outcomes or results to be achieved within the proposed project period that are specified in the Objective Work Plan. Completion of objectives must result in specific, measurable, outcomes that would benefit the community and directly contribute to the achievement of the stated community goals. Applicants should relate their proposed project objectives to outcomes that support the community's long-range goals. (Legal authority: Section 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Partnerships: Agreements between two or more parties that will support the development and implementation of the proposed project. Partnerships include other community-based organizations or associations, Tribes, federal and state agencies and private or non-profit organizations. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Performance Indicators: Measurement descriptions used to identify the outcomes or results of the project. Outcomes or results must be measurable to determine that the project has achieved its desired objective and can be independently verified through monitoring and evaluation. Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Real Property: Land, including land improvements, structures, and appurtenances thereto, excluding movable machinery and equipment. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Renovation or Alteration: The work required to change the interior arrangements or other physical characteristics of an existing facility, or install equipment so that it may be more effectively used for the project. Alteration and renovation may include work referred to as improvements, conversion, rehabilitation, remodeling, or modernization, but is distinguished from construction. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Resolution: Applicants are required to include a current signed Resolution (a formal decision voted on by the official governing body) in support of the project for the entire project period. The Resolution should indicate who is authorized to sign documents and negotiate on behalf of the Tribe or organization. The Resolution should indicate that the community was involved in the project planning process, and indicate the specific dollar amount of any non-federal matching funds (if applicable). (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Sustainable Project: A sustainable project is an on-going program or service that can be maintained without additional ANA funds. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Self-Sufficiency: The ability to generate resources to meet a community's needs in a sustainable manner. A community's progress toward self-sufficiency is based on its efforts to plan, organize, and direct resources in a comprehensive manner that is consistent with its established long-range goals. For a community to be self-sufficient, it must have local access to, control of, and coordination of services and programs that safeguard the health, well-being, and culture of the people that reside and work in the community. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Social Development: Investment in human and social capital for advancing the well-being of members of the Native American community served. Social development is the action taken to support the health, education, culture, and employment options that expand an individual's capabilities and opportunities, and that promote social inclusion and combat social ills. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

ANA will consolidate the peer panel review process. ANA is required by statute to provide a peer panel review for each eligible application. Panel reviewers are selected nationally for their education, experience, and working knowledge in ANA program areas. In FY 2003, ANA began the process of expanding and rotating the pool of panel reviewers. This process will ensure that applications for funding are reviewed, analyzed, and scored by qualified professionals in the respective program area. This organizational efficiency will ensure that each application receives appropriate consideration and that the panel review teams have the appropriate and necessary credentials to analyze, evaluate, and score applications. For example, readers with education and work experience in Environmental Regulatory Enhancement will be selected to review environmental applications. Readers with education and work experience in Language Preservation and Maintenance will be selected to review language applications. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Each application submitted under an ANA program announcement will undergo a pre-review screening to determine if (a) The application was received by the program announcement closing date; (b) the application was submitted in accordance with Application Submission Requirements; (c) the applicant is eligible for funding; (d) the applicant has submitted the proper support documentation such as proof of non-profit status, resolutions, and required government forms; and (e) an authorized representative has signed the application. An application that does not meet one of the above elements will be excluded from the competitive review process. Ineligible applicants will be notified by mail within 30 business days from the closing date of this program announcement. ANA staff cannot respond to requests for information regarding funding decisions prior to the official applicant notification. After the Commissioner has made funding decisions, unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing within 90 days. Applicants are not ranked based on general financial need. Applicants, who are initially excluded from competition because of ineligibility, may appeal the Agency's decision. Likewise, applicants may also appeal an ANA decision that an applicants' proposed activities are ineligible for funding consideration. The appeals process is stated in the final rule published in the Federal Register on August 19, 1996 (61 FR 42817 and 45 CFR part 1336, subpart C). ANA has a policy of not funding duplicative projects or allowing any one community to receive a disproportionate share of the funds available for award. When making decisions on awards of grants the Agency will consider whether the project is essentially identical or similar, in whole or significant part, to projects in the same community previously funded or being funded under the same competition. The Agency will also consider whether the grantee is already receiving funding for a SEDS project or for another project from ANA. The Agency will also take into account in making funding decisions whether a proposed project would require funding on an indefinite or recurring basis. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

Correction: Added an additional pre-screening element (f) applicants must submit a DUNS number on their SF 424 form. This element was added per the Office of Management and Budget policy published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2003. This section was further edited to read as follows: “An application that does not meet one of the above elements will be considered incomplete and excluded from the competitive review process. Applicants, with incomplete applications, will be notified by mail within 30 business days from the closing date of this program announcement.” This amendment was inserted to clarify and make a distinction between incomplete applications, which do not have recourse to appeal, and the determination of ineligibility, which has recourse to an appeal process.

In FY 2004, ANA will automate its application receipt and panel review process to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and to support the ACF Electronic Grant Application Submission Initiative. The automation of document management will provide program operation efficiency. For example, when an application is submitted to ANA it is logged into an automated system and given an identification number. After the program announcement closing date, ANA randomly assigns each application to a peer review panel for evaluation and scoring. During the review process, panel reviewer comments are downloaded into data files. These comments are then matched and stored with the application data file. This process consolidates all applications and review information, protects the confidentiality of the panel reviewers, and allows applicants to obtain comments in a timely manner. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d), 803C and 806 of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b, 2991b-3 and 2991d-1)

ANA values the knowledge and expertise of individual reviewers. Applications for funding are randomly assigned to panel review teams. Each panel reviewer is responsible for reading the program announcement Federal Register and scoring each application in accordance with the published review criteria. Each application is reviewed and scored independently by a panel reviewer. After the panel review process, ANA conducts due diligence on each application in the funding range. The ANA Commissioner determines the final action on each grant application received under ANA program announcements. The Commissioner's funding decision is based on an analysis of the application by each peer review panel, the review and recommendations of ANA staff, panel review scores, comments of State and Federal agencies having contract and grant performance related information, and other interested parties. The Commissioner makes grant awards consistent with the purpose of the Native American Programs Act (NAPA), all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, this program announcement, and the availability of appropriated funds. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d), 803C and 806 of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b, 2991b-3 and 2991d-1)

Successful applicants are notified through an official Financial Assistance Award (FAA) document. The FAA will state the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the grant award, the effective date of the award, the project period, the budget period, and the amount of the non-ACF matching share requirement. Unsuccessful applicants should expect notification within 90 days after the closing deadline date. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

In FY 2004, ANA may make public on its web site information associated with successfully funded applications. Such information will include the name of the grant recipient, type of award such as SEDS, Language, Environmental amount, the duration of the project, and a synopsis of the project. Posting this information will provide prospective applicants with examples of successfully funded projects, inform the public how and where ANA is expending its funds, and share information with other HHS, ACF, federal and state agencies. The ANA website will also include profiles of successful ANA community projects, and it will provide links to other funding sources, information on special HHS, ACF and ANA initiatives, and provide an opportunity for ANA applicants to tract the review and approval process of submitted applications for funding. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3)

The Office of Management and Budget has changed the format for program announcements published in the Federal Register . ANA has modified its normal program announcement format to comply with these changes.

Correction: The Social and Economic Development Strategies program announcement included in the November Federal Register Notice has a typographical error in one of the references to the Reporting Requirements. The Financial Status reports (SF269) will be submitted on a quarterly basis and not semi-annually as incorrectly stated on 68 FR 64685, 64707 (November 14, 2003). Under 45 CFR 74.52(a)(1)(iii) and 45 CFR 92.41(b)(3), HHS awarding agencies are authorized to require grantees to submit Form 269s as frequently as quarterly.

In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA sponsors must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved under a new drug application (NDA). Sponsors of ANDAs do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of an NDA. The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.

The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are withdrawn from the list if the agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

Under § 314.161(a)(1) (21 CFR 314.161(a)(1)), the agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness before an ANDA that refers to that listed drug may be approved. FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.

LOVENOX (enoxaparin sodium) 90 mg/0.6 mL, is the subject of approved NDA 20-164 held by Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Aventis). LOVENOX (enoxaparin sodium) 90 mg/0.6 mL, approved June 2, 2000, is an anticoagulant indicated for the prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis, which may lead to pulmonary embolism. Aventis never marketed the 90mg/0.6 mL presentation of LOVENOX. On June 10, 2003, Olsson, Frank and Weeda, P.C. submitted a citizen petition (Docket No. 2003P-0266) under § 314.161 and 21 CFR 10.21(a) and 10.30, requesting that the agency determine whether LOVENOX (enoxaparin sodium) 90 mg/0.6 mL was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The agency has determined that, for purposes of § 314.161(a) and (c), never marketing an approved drug product is equivalent to withdrawing the drug from sale.

The agency has determined that Aventis' LOVENOX (enoxaparin sodium) 90 mg/0.6 mL was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. In support of this finding, we note that Aventis continues to market other presentations of LOVENOX that are the same concentration as LOVENOX 90 mg/0.6 mL. FDA has independently evaluated relevant literature and data for adverse event reports and has found no information that would indicate this product was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

After considering the citizen petition and reviewing its records, FDA determines that, for the reasons outlined previously, Aventis' LOVENOX (enoxaparin sodium) 90 mg/0.6 mL was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the agency will continue to list LOVENOX (enoxaparin sodium) 90 mg/0.6 mL in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to LOVENOX (enoxaparin sodium) 90 mg/0.6 mL may be approved by the agency.