Title: Volunteer Programs.

OMB Control Number: 0560-0232.

Expiration Date for Approval: October 30, 2004.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The Volunteer Program PM Notice authorizes the FSA to enter into volunteer agreements with students, individuals, groups or organizations who sponsor individual's services without compensation, and who performs those services in furtherance of the programs of the Agency. The information collected allows FSA to effectively recruit, train, and accept, volunteers to carry out programs of, or supported by, the Department.

The forms covered by this collection are the Student; Individual; and Sponsored Volunteer Program Service Agreements; and supporting documents that allow the Agency to document its use of individuals who are not Federal employees to provide voluntary service, except for the purpose of Chapter 81 of Title 5, U.S.C. (relating to Worker Compensation Program) and Sections 2671 through 2680 of Title 28 U.S.C. relating to tort claims. The forms are furnished to selected volunteers to secure and record information regarding the agreement and permit the volunteer to submit time and attendance information. Documentation is required by the Office of Personnel Management letter dated April 18, 1996, i.e. , to inform volunteers of the nature of their appointment with respect to service credit for leave or other employees benefits and record time and attendance.

Estimate of Burden: The recording keeping requirements in this clearance are normal business records and, therefore, have no burden. Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response.

Total Number of Respondents: 20.

Total Travel Time Per Respondent: 1 hour.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 16.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, or mechanical, collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. These comments should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 and to Ms. C. Mondina Jolley, Student Employment Program Manager, USDA, FSA, Human Resources Division, Domestic Operations Branch, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0596. Copies of the information collection may be obtained from Ms. Jolley at the above address.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The fire burned with varying intensity. Many areas of the fire burned at high and moderate intensity, killing 75%-100% of the trees and completely consuming the duff and litter that protected the soil. In these areas, the fire resulted in high rates of soil erosion, sedimentation to streams, destruction of wildlife habitat for sensitive species, and loss of old forest characteristics. The fire killed tens of thousands of trees, that if left untreated will contribute to extremely high fuel loading over time. As these dead trees fall and fuel accumulates, future fires will be even more severe. Treating the dead and dying tree component of the landscape is the first step in reducing long term fuel loading and restoring the historic fire regime, thereby reducing the impacts of fires on the future forest and contributing to the restoration of old forest habitats. Without treatment to begin to restore the fire area, significant additional impacts to soil, water quality, cultural resources, and wildlife habitat are likely over the short and long term. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses treating the dead and dying tree component of the landscape and improving rocks to reduce sediment delivery to streams. The process of removing dead trees would reduce soil erosion by immediately increasing effective ground cover (limbs, twigs, and small boles) and maintain soil productivity for tree growth.

The proposed action would remove dead trees using ground based, skyline, and helicopter logging methods. Trees posing a safety hazard to the public and forest workers would be removed along roads, trails, residential and recreation areas. Roads would be reconstructed and improved to facilitate tree removal and to improve watershed condition. Approximately 1 mile of newly constructed road would be built. Slash and small dead trees would be treated to provide ground cover and reduce short term fuel loading. Protection would be applied to sensitive plants and wildlife species, and cultural resources.

The proposed action is consistent with the 1989 Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (2004).

The decision to be made is whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no action to remove fire killed and damaged trees in the project area, to undertake road improvements, or to implement fuel treatments.

Other alternatives will be developed based on significant issues identified during the scoping process for the environmental impact statement. All alternatives will need to respond to the specific condition of providing benefits equal to or better than the current condition. Alternatives being considered at this time include: (1) The Proposed Action and (2) No Action.

Public participation will be especially important at several points during the analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from the Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. To facilitate public participation, information about the proposed action will be mailed to all who express interest in the proposed action and notification of the public scoping period will be published in the Mountain Democrat, Placerville, CA.

Comments submitted during the scoping process should be in writing and should be specific to the proposed action. The comments should describe as clearly and completely as possible any issues the commenter has with the proposal. The scoping process includes:

(a) Identifying potential issues;

(b) Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth;

(c) Eliminating nonsignificant issues or those previously covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis;

(d) Exploring additional alternatives;

(e) Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives.

A public meeting will be held on Thursday, January 13, 2005, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Pollock Pines Community Center, Sanders Drive, Pollock Pines, California.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.

A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early state, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc . v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

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

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in June, 2005. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making the decision regarding this proposal.

John D. Berry, Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest is the responsible official. As the responsible official he will document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service appeal regulations (36 CFR part 215).

The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2004), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with November anniversary dates. The Department also received a timely request to revoke in part the antidumping duty order on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand.

In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than November 30, 2005.

None.

None.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under section 351.211 or a determination under section 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. United States , 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 202), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

The scope of this order includes drafting machines that are finished, unfinished,assembled, or unassembled, and drafting machine kits. For purposes of this sunset review, “drafting machine” refers to “track” or “elbow-type” drafting machines used by designers, engineers, architects, layout artists, and others. Drafting machines are devices for aligning scales (or rulers) at a variety of angles anywhere on a drawing surface, generally a drafting board. A protractor head allows angles to be read and set and lines to be drawn. The machine is generally clamped to the board. Also included within the scope of this order are parts of drafting machines. Parts include, but are not limited to, horizontal and vertical tracks, parts of horizontal and vertical tracks, band and pulley mechanisms, protractor heads, and parts of protractor heads, destined for use in drafting machines. Accessories, such as parallel rulers, lamps and scales are not subject to this investigation. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item 9017.10.00 and 9017.90.00. (This merchandise was previously classified under HTSUS item 710.8025.) Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

On December 29, 1989, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on drafting machines and parts thereof from Japan. See Antidumping Duty Order: Drafting Machines and Parts Thereof from Japan , 54 FR 53671 (December 29, 1989). Following the first sunset review of the order, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4), the Department published a notice of continuation in the Federal Register . See Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order: Drafting Machines and Parts Thereof From Japan , 64 FR 66166 (November 24, 1999).

On October 1, 2004, the Department initiated a second sunset review of the order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (“the Act”), and 19 CFR part 351, in general. See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Review , 69 FR 58890 (October 1, 2004). As a courtesy to interested parties, the Department sent letters, via certified and registered mail, to each party listed on the Department's most current service list for this proceeding to inform them of the automatic initiation of a sunset review.

On October 18, 2004, within the applicable deadline, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from Vemco, the only domestic interested party in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). On October 27, 2004, the Department received a response from the sole producer or exporter, Mutoh Industries Ltd. (“Mutoh”), indicating that it would not participate in the sunset review on drafting machines and parts thereof from Japan because Mutoh was not an interested party within the meaning of section 771(9)(A) of the Act.

On November 3, 2004, Vemco withdrew its Notice of Intent to Participate and withdrew its interest in maintaining the antidumping duty order on drafting machines and parts thereof from Japan. Because Vemco (the only domestic interested party in the sunset proceeding) withdrew its interest in this sunset proceeding, the Department has determined to treat this situation as if no domestic interested party responded to the notice of initiation. Therefore, the Department is revoking the antidumping duty orders on drafting machines and parts thereof from Japan.

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested parties respond to the notice of initiation, the Department shall make a final determination no later than 90 days after the initiation of the sunset review, revoking the order.

Because the only domestic interested party withdrew its interest in this sunset review ( see 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i) and 351.218(e)(1)(i)(C)(1)), consistent with the provision of section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act, we are revoking the antidumping duty order on drafting machines and parts thereof from Japan.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(3)(A) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after November 24, 2004, the fifth anniversary of the date of the determination to continue the order. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.

This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 751(d)(2), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On December 2, 2003, the Department published a Notice of Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 68 FR 67401 (December 2, 2003). On December 29, 2003, Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd. (“Anhui Honghui”); Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd. (“Eurasia”); Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd. (“Jiangsu Kanghong”); Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. (“Inner Mongolia”); Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. (“Jinfu”); Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd. (“Eswell”); Shanghai Shinomiel International Trade Corporation (“Shanghai Shinomiel”); and Wuhan Bee Health Company, Ltd. (“Wuhan Bee”), requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of each respective company's entries during the POR. On December 31, 2003, Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Dubao”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its entries during the POR. Also on December 31, 2003, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, “petitioners”) requested, in accordance with section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations, an administrative review of entries of subject merchandise made during the POR by 20 Chinese producers/exporters. 1

On January 14, 2004, petitioners filed a letter withdrawing their request for review of Henan, High Hope, Jinan, and Native Produce. On January 22, 2004, the Department initiated the review for the remaining 16 companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 3009 (January 22, 2004) (“Review Initiation”). On January 29, 2004, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the 16 PRC producers/exporters of the subject merchandise covered by this administrative review.

On February 13 and February 18, 2004, petitioners withdrew their request for review of Foodworld and Anhui Native, respectively. On February 24, 2004, Cheng Du stated that all of its direct and indirect export sales of honey to the United States during the POR fall within a separate new shipper review covering the period December 1, 2002 through May 31, 2003, and requested that the Department rescind this proceeding for Cheng Du. See Honey From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews, 68 FR 47537 (August 11, 2003). On February 25, 2004, Inner Mongolia Youth similarly stated that the only sale it made during the POR was currently being reviewed under another new shipper review, covering the identical period as this current administrative review, and requested that the Department rescind this administrative review for Inner Mongolia Youth. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Duty Administrative Reviews, 69 FR 5835. On March 5, 2004, Anhui Honghui, Eurasia, and Jiangsu Kanghong withdrew their requests for the administrative review covering the POR because all of their entries of subject merchandise during the POR were also subject to the new shipper review covering the identical POR.

On March 10, 2004, the Department rescinded the administrative review for Foodworld and Anhui Native because petitioners had withdrawn their review request for these companies. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 11383 (March 10, 2004).

On March 12, 2004, petitioners also withdrew their request for an administrative review of entries made by Anhui Honghui, Cheng Du, Eurasia, Inner Mongolia Youth, and Jiangsu Kanghong. On April 27, 2004, the Department rescinded the review for Anhui Honghui, Cheng Du, Eurasia, Inner Mongolia Youth, and Jiangsu Kanghong. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 22760 (April 27, 2004).

On March 25, 2004, we invited interested parties to comment on the Department's surrogate country selection and/or significant production in the other potential surrogate countries and to submit publicly available information to value the factors of production. On April 15, 2004, petitioners submitted comments on the selection of the proper surrogate country. On May 10, 2004, petitioners and respondents submitted comments on surrogate information with which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. On May 20, 2004, respondents submitted comments on petitioners' submissions for surrogate values.

With regard to Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang, between March and December 2004, the Department received timely filed original and supplemental questionnaire responses and petitioners' comments on those responses.

We received timely responses from Inner Mongolia to the Department's original questionnaire and petitioners commented on these submissions. We subsequently issued a supplemental questionnaire to Inner Mongolia and received a partial response. The Department then received a letter from Inner Mongolia's counsel stating that Inner Mongolia was withdrawing its request for an annual review. On June 23, 2004, the Department issued a letter to Inner Mongolia, noting that petitioners have not withdrawn their request for review, that the Department is proceeding with the review, and that the Department requires Inner Mongolia's continued participation or the Department may resort to facts available. The Department received a response from counsel for Inner Mongolia, in which Inner Mongolia's counsel stated that Inner Mongolia would not be participating in this administrative review any further as it was canceling operations, and that counsel was no longer representing Inner Mongolia. See Memorandum to the File from Steve Williams dated July 1, 2004 (“Shanghai Shinomiel and Inner Mongolia Memo”).

We received timely responses from Shanghai Xiuwei to Sections A, C, and D, and petitioners submitted comments on these responses. We issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai Xiuwei and received an incomplete response. The Department issued a letter to Shanghai Xiuwei, requesting for a second time that Shanghai Xiuwei respond completely to the Department's supplemental questionnaire as requested, or risk application of facts available. Shanghai Xiuwei requested that the review be rescinded, as it had been unable to collect certain data from its board or its importers to respond to the Department's questionnaire. On August 27, 2004, the Department issued another letter to Shanghai Xiuwei rejecting its withdrawal request, noting that petitioners had not withdrawn their request for review. We received no response from Shanghai Xiuwei.

The Department received no response from Shanghai Shinomiel to its original questionnaire. The Department subsequently issued a letter to shanghai Shinomeil requesting that it respond to the Department's questionnaire as requested, or risk application of adverse facts available. In addition, the Department spoke with counsel for Shanghai Shinomeil, and Shanghai Shinomeil's counsel informed the Department that Shanghai Shinomiel would not be participating in this administrative review. See Shanghai Shinomiel and Inner Mongolia Memo.

The Department received no response from Kunshan to its original questionnaire by the deadlines. The Department issued a second request to Kunshan to respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. See Letter from Abdelali Elouaradia to Kunshan Foreign Trade Company, dated March 10, 2004. Kunshan notified the Department that it made no shipments to the United States during the POR, and requested that the Department rescind this administrative review for Kunshan. See Letter from Kunshan, to Abdelali Elouaradia (undated). We received no comments from any interested parties regarding Kunshan's request for rescission. Therefore, because Kunshan had no shipments to the United States during the POR, the Department is preliminarily rescinding this administrative review for Kunshan. See “Preliminary partial Rescission of Administrative Review” section, below.

On June 1, 2004, the Department published an extension of the time limits to complete these preliminary results. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 30879 (June 1, 2004).

On August 12, 2004, petitioners submitted a letter requesting that the Department apply adverse facts available (“AFA”) to Shanghai Xiuwei, Inner Mongolia, and Shanghai Shinomiel for the preliminary results.

On October 1, 2004, the Department published an additional extension of the time limits to complete these preliminary results. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Extension of time Limit of Preliminary Results of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 58893 (October 1, 2004).

On November 18, 2004, petitioners submitted comments on the valuation of the hone surrogate value and surrogate financial ratios. On December 3, 3004, Eswell, Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang submitted comments on the surrogate financial ratios.

In accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, as amended, we determine that it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time frame because of the Department's decision to verify certain respondents in this review ( see “Verification” section of this notice for further discussion). We are currently unable to conduct verification or allow sufficient opportunity for the submission of interested party comments, prior to the current final results deadline. Thus, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results of this review until no later than 150 days from the date of publication of this notice.

The products covered by this order are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307, we intend to verify certain information relied upon in making our final results. On May 3, 2004, petitioners submitted a request that the Department conduct verifications of Inner Mongolia, Jinfu, Eswell, Shanghai Xiuwei, Dubao, Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang. Petitioners noted that Inner Mongolia's questionnaire responses have not been verified in any of the immediately preceding new shipper reviews, and that Eswell has never had its information verified. Petitioners state that the remaining respondents should be verified pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv), and submitted information regarding “good cause” related to Jinfu, Shanghai Xiuwei, Dubao, Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang. We intend to verify Dubao and Wuhan Bee. However, we do not intend to verify Jinfu, Eswell, and Zhejiang because we have not been provided with a sufficient basis to conclude that there is “good cause” for verification within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv), and there have not been two administrative reviews without verification within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(v)(B). Additionally, because Shanghai Xiuwei and Inner Mongolia have declined to participate in this administrative review, we are unable to verify information submitted on the record by these two companies. See “The PRC-wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available” section below.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined that Kunshan made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In making this determination, the Department examined PRC honey shipment data maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). Based on the information obtained from CBP, we found no entries of subject merchandise during the POR manufactured or exported by Kunshan to the United States. See also Memorandum to the File regarding Entries by Kunshan Foreign Trade Company, dated December 15, 2004.

Therefore, based on the results of our CBO query, demonstrating no shipments of subject merchandise by Kunshan during the POR, as well as Kunshan's claim that it had no subject shipments, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) with respect to Kunshan because we found no evidence that Kunshan made shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR.

In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( de jure ) and in fact ( de facto ), with respect to its export activities. In this review Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, Wuhan Bee, Zhejiang, Inner Mongolia, and Shanghai Xiuwei requested separate company-specific rates. 2

Accordingly, we have considered whether each of the companies is independent from government control, and therefore eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether the exporters are independent from government control does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“Sparklers”), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“Silicon Carbide”). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, Wuhan Bee, Zhejiang (collectively “fully responsive companies”) provided complete separate-rate information in their responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether these exporters are independent from government control.

As stated above in the “Background” section, Inner Mongolia, Shanghai Xiuwei, and Shanghai Shinomiel (collectively “non-responsive companies” did not respond in a complete and timely manner to the Department's requests for information and therefore are subject to adverse facts available, and no separate-rates analysis is necessary. Because these three non-responsive companies did not provide complete and verifiable responses to our requests for information regarding separate rates, we preliminarily determine that these companies do not merit separate rates. See, e.g., Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 57389 (November 6, 1996). Consequently, consistent with the statement in our notice of initiation, we find that, because these companies do not qualify for separate rates, they are deemed to be part of the PRC-entity. See Review Initiation. See also “The Use of Facts Otherwise Available and PRC-wide Rate” section below.

The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactment decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal measures by the government centralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. As discussed below, our analysis shows that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control for the five fully responsive companies based on each of these factors.

Dubao has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the “Regulations of the People's Republic of China for Controlling the Registration of Enterprises as Legal Persons,” and the “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China” (May 12, 1994) (“Foreign Trade Law ”). See Exhibit 3 of Dubao's March 15, 2004, submission (“Dubao Section A”). Dubao also submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit 2 of Dubao Section A. This license was issued by the Chengdu Municipal Industrial and Commercial Administration. Dubao explains that its business license is necessary to register the company. Dubao affirms that its business operations are limited to the scope of the license, and that the license may be revoked if the company engages in illegal activities or if the company is found to have insufficient capital.

Eswell has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the “Company Law of the People's Republic of China” (December 29, 1993) (“Company Law”), Foreign Trade Law, and the “Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations” (June 3, 1998) (“ Legal Corporations Regulations ”). See Exhibit 3 of Eswell's March 11, 2004, submission (“Eswell Section A”). In addition, Eswell placed on the record in Exhibit 6 of its October 29, 2004, submission the Certificate of Approval for Enterprises with Foreign Trade rights in the People's Republic of China (“Foreign Trade Rights”). Eswell also submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit 4 of Eswell Section A. This license was issued by the Shanghai Industry and Commerce Administrative Bureau. Eswell explains that its business license is necessary to register the company. Eswell affirms that its business operations are limited to the scope of the license, and that the license may be revoked if the company engaged in illegal activities or if the company is found to have insufficient capital.

Jinfu has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, the Company Law, Foreign Trade Law, and the Legal Corporations Regulations. See Exhibit 2 of Jinfu's March 11, 2004, submission (“Jinfu Section A”). Jinfu also submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit 3 of Jinfu Section A. The Suzhou Kunshan Industry and Commerce Administrative Bureau issued this license. Jinfu explains that the business license defines its business scope. Jinfu also affirms that its business operations are limited to the scope of the license, and that the license may be revoked if the company engages in illegal activities or if the company conducts activities outside of the business scope described on its business license.

Wuhan Bee has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the Foreign Trade Law, the Legal Corporations Regulations, The Law of the People's Republic of China: On Chinese-Foreign Joint Ventures (April 13, 1998) and the Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures (April 4, 1990). See Exhibit 2 of Wuhan Bee's March 11, 2004, submission (“Wuhan Bee Section A”). Wuhan Bee also submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit 3 of Wuhan Bee Section A. The Industrial and Commercial Administrative Bureau of Wuhan City issued this license. Wuhan Bee explains that its business license is necessary to register the company and that the license defines the scope of the company's business activities and ensures that the company has sufficient capital to continue its business operations. Wuhan Bee affirms that its business operations are limited to the scope of the license, unless amended, and that the license may be revoked if the company is found to have insufficient capital or if the company engages in activities outside the scope of its business license.

Zhejiang has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the Company Law, Foreign Trade Law, and the Legal Corporations Regulations. See Exhibit 2 of Zhejiang's March 11, 2004, submission (“Zhejiang Section A”). Zhejiang also submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit 3 of Zhejiang Section A. This license was issued by the Industrial and Commercial Administrative Bureau of Zhejiang Province on May 17, 2001. Zhejiang explains that its business license is necessary to register the company. Zhejiang affirms that its business operations are limited to the scope of the license, and that the license may be revoked if the company engages in illegal activities or if the company is found to have insufficient capital.

We note that three of the five fully responsive companies have stated that they are governed by the Company Law, which they claim governs the establishment of limited liability companies, and provides that such a company shall operate independently and be responsible for its own profits and losses. All of the fully responsive companies have placed on the record the Foreign Trade Law, and stated that this law allows them full autonomy from the central authority in governing their business operations. We have reviewed Article 11 of Chapter II of the Foreign Trade Law, which states “foreign trade dealers shall enjoy full autonomy in their business operation and be responsible for their own profits and losses in accordance with the law.” As in prior cases, we have analyzed such PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of New Shipper Review, 63 FR 3085, 3086 (January 21, 1998) and Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de jure control over the export activities of Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang.

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

As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See Silicon Carbide at 22586-22587. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control, which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

Dubao has asserted the following: (1) It is a privately owned company; (2) there is no government participation in its setting of export prices; (3) its sales manager has the authority to bind sales contracts; (4) it does not have to notify any government authorities of its management selection; (5) there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and (6) it is responsible for financing its own losses. We have examined the documentation provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC honey.

Eswell has asserted the following: (1) It is a privately owned limited liability company; (2) there is no government participation in its setting of export prices; (3) the president of its affiliated company in the United States or its designated sales agents have the authority to bind sales contracts; (4) its management is selected by its board of directors and it does not have to notify any government authorities of its management selection; (5) there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and (6) it is responsible for financing its own losses. We have examined the documentation provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC honey.

Jinfu has asserted the following: (1) It is a privately owned company; (2) there is no government participation in its setting of export prices; (3) its chief executive officer and authorized employee have the authority to bind sales contacts; (4) it does not have to notify any government authorities of its management selection; (5) there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and (6) its board of directors decides how profits will be used. We have examined the documentation provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC honey.

Wuhan Bee has asserted the following: (1) It is a joint-venture corporation; (2) there is no government participation in its setting of export prices; (3) its general manager and its U.S.-based affiliate have the authority to bind sales contracts; (4) it does not have to notify any government authorities of its management selection; (5) there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and (6) its board of directors decides how profits will be used. We have examined the documentation provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC honey.

Zhejiang has asserted the following: (1) It is a publicly owned company; (2) there is no government participation in its setting of export prices; (3) the Manager of the Bee products Department has the authority to bind sales contracts; (4) it does not have to notify any government authorities of its management selection; (5) there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and (6) it is responsible for financing its own losses. We have examined the documentation provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC honey.

Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over each respondent's export activities, we preliminarily determine that each fully responsive company has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.

Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, Wuhan Bee, Zhejiang, Kunshan, Shanghai Xiuwei, Inner Mongolia, and Shanghai Shinomiel were given the opportunity to respond to the Department's questionnaire. As explained above, we received complete questionnaire responses from Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang, and we have calculated a separate rate for these companies (collectively “fully responsive companies”). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from PRC producers/exporters that have their own calculated rate. See “Separate Rates” section above. 3

As discussed above, Shanghai Xiuwei, Inner Mongolia, and Shanghai Shinomiel (collectively “non-responsive companies”) are appropriately considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity because they failed to establish their eligibility for a separate rate. Furthermore, because the PRC-wide entity did not provide information necessary to the instant proceeding, it is necessary that we review the PRC-wide entity. In doing so, we note that Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use the facts available if necessary information is not available on the record of an antidumping proceeding. In addition, 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 Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department shall promptly inform the party submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. Section 782(d) further states that if the party submits further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the administering authority if (1) the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission, (2) the information can be verified, (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination, (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the administering authority with respect to the information, and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.

As addressed below separately for each non-responsive company, we find that the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, and necessary information either was not provided, or the information provided cannot be verified and is not sufficiently complete to enable the Department to use it for these preliminary results. Therefore, we find it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary results of this review for the PRC-wide entity.

As stated above in the “Background” section, Shanghai Shinomiel did not respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. Rather, as noted above, Shanghai Shinomiel informed the Department that it would not be participating in this proceeding, and failed to respond to the Department's repeated requests for information. See Shanghai Shinomiel and Inner Mongolia Memo. The Department has no information on the record for Shanghai Shinomiel with which to calculate a dumping margin in this proceeding; therefore, we find that Shanghai Shinomiel has significantly impeded the proceeding, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Because Shanghai Shinomiel did not respond to the Department's questionnaires, sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not applicable.

As stated above in the “Background” section, Inner Mongolia responded to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. The Department subsequently requested additional information from Inner Mongolia in a supplemental questionnaire. See Supplemental A, C, and D questionnaire, dated April 19, 2004. On May 14, 2004, the Department received a partial response to this supplemental questionnaire that was seriously deficient. Inner Mongolia stated that it would provide additional information subsequent to this response, but failed to do so. We note that the information omitted included details on Inner Mongolia's and its producers' board members, information critical to the Department's separate-rates analysis ( see “Separate Rates” section above), as well as information on its U.S. affiliate. 4 The Department gave Inner Mongolia an additional opportunity to provide the information the Department had requested on April 19, 2004. The Department explained to Inner Mongolia that it must comply with its requests for information or be subject to facts available for the preliminary results. See Letter from Edward Yang to Inner Mongolia dated June 23, 2004. In response to this additional request for information, Inner Mongolia's counsel informed the Department that Inner Mongolia is out of business and would no longer participate in this review. See Shanghai Shinomiel and Inner Mongolia Memo.

The Department provided Inner Mongolia with several opportunities to comply with its requests for information and to submit complete and accurate information. However, Inner Mongolia failed to provide the Department with the requested information.

Due to these serious deficiencies, we preliminarily find that Inner Mongolia has failed to provide the information requested, thereby significantly impeding the proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that the application of facts available is appropriate for these preliminarily results.

Shanghai Xiuwei responded to the Department's original questionnaire. However, as stated in the “Background” section of this notice, the Department requested additional information from Shanghai Xiuwei on April 19, 2004. This supplemental questionnaire included 73 questions that addressed serious deficiencies in Shanghai Xiuwei's response regarding affiliation of importers, sales process, and factors of production. Despite providing Shanghai Xiuwei with ample time to collect the requested information ( see memorandum to the File from Brandon Farlander, dated April 23, 2004), the Department did not receive any of the requested information from Shanghai Xiuwei. The Department provided Shanghai Xiuwei with an additional opportunity to respond to the Department's request for information on June 23, 2004. Shanghai Xiuwei again failed to provide the information requested and stated that it was unable to supply any of the requested information. 5 The Department supplied Shanghai Xiuwei with numerous opportunities to respond to the Department's requests for information. However, Shanghai Xiuwei refused to submit any information in response. The Department preliminarily finds, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A),(B),(C), and (D) of the Act, that Shanghai Xiuwei has repeatedly withheld information requested by the Department, thereby significantly impeding the Department's ability to conduct this proceeding. Therefore, the application of facts available is warranted with respect to Shanghai Xiuwei.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the respondent if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. 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 Act (“SAA”) accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). In determining whether a respondent has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department need not make a determination regarding the willfulness of a respondent's conduct. See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F. 3rd 1373, 1382-1393 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, “an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). Instead, the courts have made clear that the Department must articulate its reasons for concluding that a party failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, and explain why the missing information is significant to the review. Id.

In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient attention to its statutory duties. See Tung Mung Dev. Co. v. United States, 223 F. Supp 2d 1336, 1342 (August 6, 2002). Furthermore, the Department also considers the accuracy and completeness of submitted information, and whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997).

Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. As noted above, the PRC-wide entity informed the Department that it would not participate in this review, or otherwise, did not provide any of the requested information, despite repeated requests that it do so. This information was the sole possession of the respondents, and could not be obtained otherwise. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity refused to participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review.

An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act. It is the Department's practice to assign the highest rate from any segment of a proceeding as total adverse facts available when a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils form Taiwan; Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789 (February 7, 2002) (“Consistent with Department practice in cases where a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability, and in keeping with section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as adverse facts available, we have applied a margin based on the highest margin from any prior segment of the proceeding.”).

In accordance with the Department's practice, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity (including Shanghai Xiuwei, Inner Mongolia, and Shjanghai Shinomiel) the rate of 183.80 percent as adverse facts available. 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). This rate is the highest dumping margin from any segment of this proceeding and was established in the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation based on information contained in the petition. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey from the PRC, 66 FR 50608 (October 4, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Final Determination”). In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department selects a rate that 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).

We note that information from a prior segment of this proceeding constitutes “secondary information,” and section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on such secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of a review, the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. 6 The SAA state that the independent sources may include published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation or review. The SAA also clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (“TRBs”), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.

We note that in the LTFV investigation, the Department corroborated the information in the petition that formed the basis of the 183.80 percent PRC-wide rate, See Final Determination. Specifically, in the LTFV investigation, the Department compared the prices in the petition to the prices submitted by individual respondents for comparable merchandise. For normal value (“NV”), we compared petitioners' factor-consumption data to data reported by respondents. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 24101 (May11, 2001) (“Investigation Prelim”).

In order to satisfy the corroboration requirements under section 776(c) of the Act, in the instant review, we reviewed the Department's corroboration of the petition rates from the LTFV investigation and in the first administrative review. See, e.g., Investigation Prelim; Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 69988 (December 16, 2003) (“First Admin Review”); and reinforced in Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 24128 (May 3, 2004). Because the secondary information from the LTFV investigation was recently corroborated in the first administrative review, and no information has been presented to call into question the reliability of the information from the LTFV investigation or the first administrative review, we find that the petition information is reliable. For a further discussion, see e.g., Memorandum to the File from Kristina Boughton through James Doyle, Office Director regarding the Corroboration of the Petition Rate, dated December 15, 2004 (“Corroboration Memo”).

We further note that, with respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department stated in TRBs that it will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin.'' See TRBs at 61 FR 57392. See also Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (disregarding the highest margin in the case as best information available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an extremely high margin). The rate applied in this review is the rate currently applicable to all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. Further, as noted above and in the Corroboration Memo, there is no information on the record that the application of this rate would be inappropriate in this administrative review or that the margin is not relevant. Thus, we find that the information is relevant. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that the PRC-wide rate of 183.80 is still reliable, relevant, and has probative value within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.

Jinfu has claimed that it is affiliated with Jinfu Trading (USA) Inc., (“Jinfu USA”) within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act. Section 771(33) of the Act states that affiliated persons include: (A) Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants, (B) any officer or director of an organization and such organization, (C) partners, (D) employer and employee, (E) any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization, (F) two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, any person, (G) any person who controls any other person and such other person. For purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person. In order to find affiliation between companies, the Department must find that at least one of the criteria listed above is applicable to the respondents.

Though no party in this case is questioning whether or not Jinfu was in fact affiliated with Jinfu USA at some point during the POR within the meaning of Section 771(33), we note that the effective date of this affiliation is in question ,and is significant to this proceeding for purposes of determining whether Jinfu's U.S. sales should be reported as “export price” sales or “constructed export price” sales. See discussion below under “United States Price” section of this notice. in this regard, Jinfu claims that it was affiliated with Jinfu USA as of October 25, 2002, which means the two firms were affiliated throughout the entire POR. In support of this contention, Jinfu has provided documentation it claims establishes that it acquired ownership of Jinfu USA on October 25, 2002.

Nevertheless, in the most recently completed segment of these PRC honey proceedings, the Department determined that Jinfu was not affiliated with Jinfu USA at the time of its first sale to the United States, which occurred on November 2, 2002. See Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 69 FR 64029 (November 3, 2004) (“NSR Chengdu Final Results”) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. In making this finding in NSR Chengdu Final Results, the Department further noted that evidence on the record suggested that Jinfu did not actually own Jinfu USA until after the new shipper POR, ending May 31, 2003. See, id.

In considering for purposes of these preliminary results whether Jinfu was affiliated with Jinfu USA under section 771(33) of the Act, we analyzed all information on the record regarding possible affiliation between Jinfu and Jinfu USA. In particular, we considered whether Jinfu's purchase/investment in Jinfu USA, as delineated in a stock ownership transfer agreement, resulted in a common control relationship between Jinfu USA and Jinfu at any time during the POR.

Based on all of the information on the record, the Department has preliminarily determined that Jinfu and Jinfu USA were not affiliated with the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act until October 25, 2003, which is the date the above-referenced stock transfer agreement was executed. We note that this decision is consistent with our findings in NSR Chengdu Final Results. Moreover, in reaching this decision, the Department considered all the additional information submitted by Jinfu in this proceeding, but determined such additional information did not have sufficient probative value to call into question the decision in NSR Chengdu Final Results. For a further discussion of this issue, see Proprietary Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Analysis of the Relationship and Treatment of Sales between Jinfu Trading, Co., Ltd. and Jinfu Trading (USA) Inc. from Kristina Boughton, Case Analyst, to James Doyle, Office Director, dated December 15, 2004.

To determine whether the respondents' sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at prices below normal value, we compared their United States prices to normal values, as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

For Dubao and Jinfu, and certain sales by Wuhan Bee and Zhejiang, we based United States price on export price (“EP”) in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed export price (“CEP”) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where applicable, we deducted foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses from port to warehouse, and U.S. import duties and brokerage and handling from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Certain information regarding the sales made from Dubao to its unaffiliated customers raises concerns regarding the status of Dubao's relationship with its customers, the status of its customers as legitimate importers of record, and when and how Dubao received payment for its sales. Therefore, the Department intends to further examine this information for the final results of review. Moreover, the Department intends to further examine this information for the final results of review. Moreover, the Department will issue an additional supplemental questionnaire following the preliminary results of review. Due to the proprietary nature of this information, the specific issues are identified in the Proprietary Analysis Memorandum to the File from Anya Naschak, Case Analyst, dated December 15, 2004. For purposes of these preliminary results, the Department has determined to rely on the U.S. sales data submitted by Dubao. For these preliminary results for Dubao, we deducted foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling expenses from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Wuhan Bee, we added billing and quantity adjustments and freight revenue to the starting price and deducted discounts, foreign inland freight, and foreign brokerage and handling expenses from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. And for Zhejiang, where applicable, we deducted foreign inland freight and international freight from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Based on the Department's preliminary decision on affiliation between Jinfu and Jinfu USA, the Department requested that Jinfu supply EP sales information for all of its sales to the United States during the POR. Therefore, we calculated EP and deducted foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling expenses from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Where foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, or marine insurance were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values ( see “Factors of Production” section below for further discussion). For those expenses that were provided by a market-economy provider and paid for in market-economy currency, we used the reported expense.

For Eswell and certain sales by Wuhan Bee and Zhejiang, we calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because certain sales were made on behalf of the PRC-based company by its U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers. We based CEP on packed, delivered or ex-warehouse prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. import duties, and U.S. inland freight expenses.

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

Specifically, for Eswell we deducted (where applicable) foreign inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the customer, commissions, credit expenses, other direct selling expenses (lab tests), indirect selling expenses, CEP profit, and added (where applicable) freight revenue.

For Zhejiang we deducted (where applicable) foreign inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the customer, commissions, credit expenses, indirect selling expenses, as well as CEP profit.

Wuhan Bee reported to the Department further manufacturing costs associated with blending subject merchandise with non-subject merchandise in the United States. On December 3, 2004, Wuhan Bee submitted comments on the appropriate methodology for assessing further manufacturing costs for these preliminary results. The Department has examined these comments and determined, for these preliminary results, the appropriate methodology for calculating a further manufacturing cost. Because of the proprietary nature of this information, further discussion of this issue can be found in the Memorandum to the File from Kristina Boughton: Wuhan Bee Healthy Co. Ltd. Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review, dated December 15, 2004. For Wuhan Bee, to calculate CEP we added (where applicable) billing and quantity adjustments and freight revenue to the gross unit price. Then we deducted (where applicable) discounts, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the customer, further manufacturing, credit expenses, commissions, inventory carrying costs, indirect selling expenses, and CEP profit.

Where foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, or marine insurance, were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values ( see “Factors of Production” section below for further discussion). For those expenses that were provided by a market-economy provider and paid for in market-economy currency, we used the reported expense.

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

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development, as identified in the February 24, 2004, Memorandum from the Office of Policy to Abdelali Elouaradia. 7 In addition, based on publicly available information placed on the record ( e.g., world production data), India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we considered India the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. See Memorandum to the file from Anya Naschak through James Doyle entitled, “Selection of a Surrogate Country,” dated December 15, 2004 (“Surrogate Country Memo”).

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the factors of production which included, but we were not limited to: (A) Hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used factors of production reported by the producer or exporter for materials, energy, labor, and packing. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian values.

In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our practice. When we used publicly available import data from the Ministry of Commerce of India (“Indian Import Statistics”) for December 2002 through November 2003 to value inputs sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we added to the Indian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest port of export to the factory This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we used non-import surrogate values for factors sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we based freight for inputs on the actual distance from the input supplier to the site at which the input was used. In instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all export markets ( i.e. , Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 1. See, also, Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in the Department's final results at 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Also consistent with our policy, we excluded, in a few instances, import data that appeared to be aberrational when compared to the average import value of all countries not excluded. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594, April 16, 2004, and accompanying issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. See Memorandum to the File, through James Doyle, Office Director, entitled, “Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Second Antidumping Duty Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China,” dated December 15, 2004 (“Factor Valuation Memo”), for a complete discussion of the import data what we excluded from our calculation of surrogate values. This memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.

Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published in the International Financial Statistics (“IFS”) of the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”), for those surrogate values in Indian rupees. We made currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations to U.S. dollars using the applicable average exchange rate for the POR. We based the average exchange rates on exchange rate data from the Import Administration Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html . See Factor Valuation Memo. We valued the factors of production as follows:

To value raw honey, we used the average of two raw honey prices, provided in an article published in The Tribune (of India) on December 15, 2003, entitled, “Honey sweet despite price fall.” A copy of the original article, which was submitted by petitioners, is attached at Attachment 3 of the Factor Valuation Memo. The respondents in this review submitted other news articles to be used as potential sources for the surrogate value data for raw honey, including an article from the Hindu Business Line dated April 2003 and an article from IndiaInfoline.com dated September 2003. We have not used either of these alternate sources proposed by respondents in the preliminary results, as discussed in the Factor Valuation Memo.

In selecting the raw honey values from The Tribune (of India) article as the best available information with which to value raw honey in this proceeding, we note that the Department has conducted extensive research on potential raw honey surrogate values for this administrative review. The relevant research is included as Attachment 17 of the Factor Valuation Memo. Additionally, the Department contacted U.S. Foreign Agriculture Service (“FAS”) officers in India to conduct research on its behalf ( see Memorandum to the File from Anya Naschak, dated November 19, 2004). The information obtained from these FAS officers included price quotes from the North India Beekeepers Society (“NIBS”). The Department also evaluated the reasonableness of using Mahabaleshwar Honey Producers Cooperative Society, Ltd.'s (“MHPC”) cost of raw honey from its financial statements. None of these other sources of information are as reliable as the raw honey values appearing in The Tribune (of India) article. Specifically, the Department cannot confirm the quality or reliability of the NBS values, and the MHPC price is that a single producer. In addition, we note “the Department's preference is to use industry-wide values, rather than the values of a single producer, wherever possible, because industry-wide values are more representative of prices/costs of all producers in the surrogate country.” See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 50608 (October 4, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 (“Final Determination”). See also Final Results of the First Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 25060 (May 5, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.

The use of The Tribune (of India) article is also consistent with the Department's recent decision in the third new shipper review of this order. See NSR Chengdu Final Results and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. For a further discussion of this issue, see Factor Valuation Memo, as well as the preliminary results of the new shipper reviews that are contemporaneous with the instant review. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 69 FR 69350 (November 29, 2004) (“NSR Anhui Prelim Results”).

To value water, we used the water tariff rate, as reported on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's Web site. See http://www.mcgm.gov.in/Stat%20&%20Fig/Revenue.htm. Because this data is not contemporaneous with the POR, an adjustment has been made for inflation using WPI data.

To value diesel fuel for autos, we used the rate published in International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes—Quarterly Statistics (Fourth Quarter 2003), under “Automotive Diesel for Commercial Use.” See Factor Valuation Memo.

To value beeswax, scrap honey, coal, paint, and labels, we used Indian Import Statistics, contemporaneous with the POR, removing data from certain countries as discussed in the Factor Valuation Memo. We also adjusted the surrogate values to include freight costs incurred between the shorter of the two reported distances from either (1) the closet PRC seaport to the location producing the subject merchandise, or (2) the PRC domestic materials supplier to the location where the subject merchandise is produced. See Factor Valuation Memo.

We valued electricity using the Annual Report (2001-2002) on The Working of State Electricity Boards & Electricity Departments of the Planning Commission (Power and Energy Division) of the Government of India (May 2002), as submitted by respondents in their May 10, 2004, submission at Exhibit 5. We inflated the value for electricity using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memo.

To value drums, we relied upon a price quote from an Indian steel drum manufacturer from September 2000, as provided by Petitioners in their May 10, 2004, submission at Exhibit 9. We inflated the value for drums using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memo.

To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit, we relied upon publicly available information in the 2002-2003 annual report of MHPC, a producer of the subject merchandise in India, upon which both petitioners and respondents have argued that the Department should rely upon. Petitioners aver in their November 18, 2004, submission that the Department should continue to rely on the methodology used in NSR Chengdu Final Results. Respondents argued in their December 3, 2004, submission that the Department should exclude the line item for “Honey Sale Commission” from the calculation of SG&A. However, we preliminarily find that the Department's calculation in NSR Chengdu Final Results was appropriate. Therefore, for these preliminary results we are continuing to include “Honey Sale Commission” in our calculation of the SG&A ratio and have applied the resulting ratios to the calculated cost of manufacture and cost of production using the same methodology established in NSR Chengdu Final Results and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 and reinforced in NSR Anhui Prelim Results. For a further discussion of this issue, see Factor Valuation Memo.

Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar levels of per capita gross domestic product, section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use of regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor input, we used the PRC's regression-based wage rate published by Import Administration on its Web site. The source of the wage rate data on the Import Administration Web site is the Yearbook of Labor Statistics 2002, International Labor Organization (“ILO”), (Geneva: 2002), and gross national income (GNI”) data as reported in World Development Indicators, The World Bank, (Washington, DC: 2003 and 2004). See Factor Valuation Memo.

To value truck freight, we used an average truck freight cost based on Indian truck freight rates on a per-metric-ton basis published in the Iron and Steel Newsletter, April 2002, which we adjusted for inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo.

We valued marine insurance, where necessary, based on publicly available price quotes from a marine insurance provider at http://www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html. We also valued brokerage and handling using the source, dated November 12, 1999, that petitioners provided in their May 10, 2004, submission. Since the brokerage rate was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the rate for inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo.

In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations, for the final results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production until 20 days following the date of publication of these preliminary results.

We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist:

For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin for each company, see the respective company's Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Second Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China, dated December 15, 2004. Public Versions of these memoranda are on file in the CRU.

Pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis ( i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered quantity or value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total quantity or entered value of the sales to that importer. 8 If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against the total quantity or entered value for the subject merchandise on each of the respondents' importer's/customer's entries during the POR.

The following cash-deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of honey from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by Dubao, Eswell, Jinfu, Wuhan Bee, and Zhejiang, the cash-deposit rate will be that 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(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above that have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period (except for Inner Mongolia and Shanghai Xiuwei, whose cash-deposit rates have changed in their review to the PRC-wide entity rate as noted below); (3) the cash-deposit rate for all other PRC exporters (including Inner Mongolia, Shanghai Xiuwei, and Shanghai Shinomiel) will be the PRC-wide rate established in the final results of this review; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter.

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

The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice is accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing.

Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice is accordance with section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments include in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will issue the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 150 days after the date of publication of this notice ( see “Extension of Final Results” section above).

This notice also 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 prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during these review periods. 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 this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On December 10, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty order on Honey from Argentina. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 63672. On December 31, 2003, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners) requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina in response to the Department's notice of opportunity to request a review published in the Federal Register . Petitioners requested the Department review entries of subject merchandise made by 13 Argentine producers/exporters. In addition, the Department received requests for review from five Argentine exporters. On January 15, 2004, petitioners withdrew four of their 13 requests. The Department initiated the review for the remaining nine companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 69 FR 3117-3119 (January 22, 2004).

On February 18, 2004, petitioners withdrew their requests for review for a further two companies. The Department subsequently rescinded the review with respect to these two companies Compania Europea Americana, S.A. and Radix S.r.L. See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 69 FR 12121 (March 15, 2004).

On February 11, 2004, the Department issued sections A, B, and C of the antidumping questionnaire to all exporters subject to review. We received responses on March 22 and April 6, 2004, (ACA); March 3 and March 29, 2004, (HoneyMax); March 19 and April 2, 2004, (Nexco); March 10 and April 2, 2004, (Seylinco); March 17, and April 2, 2004, (TransHoney); March 18 and April 2, 2004, (CAA). We received no response from Nutrin. After numerous attempts to contact counsel for Nutrin, on June 24, 2004, Nutrin's counsel stated Nutrin would not be responding to the Department's requests for information. See Memoranda to the File dated April 7, 2004, and June 24, 2004. We received no comments from petitioners.

The Department issued additional supplemental questionnaires on April 16 (TransHoney); March 30, May 6, July 26, and August 20 (CAA); April 15 and May 4 (ACA); April 15 and July 30 (Nexco); May 6 and August 2 (Honeymax) and May 6 (Seylinco). We received responses to these additional supplemental questionnaires on May 3 (TransHoney); May 6, May 20, August 16, September 3, September 20, September 27, and September 29 (CAA); April 28 and May 12 (ACA); May 7 and August 13 (Nexco); May 20 (Seylinco); and May 27 and August 23 (HoneyMax). On June 30, 2004, the Department determined a “particular market situation” existed in Argentina during the POR. See the discussion of “Selection of Comparison Market” under “Normal Value” below.

Consequently on June 30, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to CAA's affiliate, Mielar S.A. (Mielar), requesting a Section B sales database covering sales by Mielar to Germany, Mielar's largest third-country market. Mielar filed its Section B sales database on July 21, 2004.

On November 5, 2004, CAA responded to the Department's request for audited financial statements for the 2003 fiscal year for Mielar. On November 16, 2004, the Department rejected an untimely submission purporting to describe the adjustments made to reconcile the unaudited financial statements to the audited financial report.

On August 11, 2004, the Department extended the time limit for issuance of the preliminary results of the administrative review to December 20, 2004. See Honey from Argentina; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Administrative Review , 69 FR 48843 (August 11, 2004).

Because the Department disregarded certain ACA sales at prices below the cost of production (COP) in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding at the time of initiation of this review, namely the investigation, the Department initiated a cost investigation and selected six of ACA's unaffiliated suppliers to serve as cost respondents. On April 29, 2004, the Department issued Section D questionnaires to four honey suppliers (three beekeepers and one middleman). On May 5, 2004, the Department selected a new beekeeper to replace one of the original cost respondents. On May 10, 2004, the Department issued its Section D questionnaire to the final two beekeepers. On June 17, 2004, the Department excused the middleman for ACA from responding to Section D. On June 22, 2004, the Department received responses from the five beekeepers serving as the cost respondents. Supplemental questionnaires were issued on August 5, 2004, to two beekeepers and on August 10, 2004, to the three other beekeepers. Responses to these supplemental questionnaires were received on September 9, 2004.

The merchandise covered by this order is honey from Argentina. The products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise covered by this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we verified sales information provided by CAA and cost information provided by ACA, using standard verification procedures such as the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public and proprietary versions of our verification reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) in room B-099 of the main Department building. See CAA's Sales Verification Report, dated December 20, 2004, and Verification of ACA and selected beekeepers, dated November 26, 2004, on file in the CRU.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all sales of honey covered by the description in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, supra, which were sold in the respective third-country markets during the POR to be the foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to honey sold in the United States. We matched products based on the physical characteristics reported by CAA, ACA, HoneyMax, Nexco, Seylinco, and TransHoney. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the third-country market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the antidumping duty questionnaire and instructions, or to constructed value (CV), as appropriate.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade (LOT) as EP or the CEP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa , 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).

ACA reported two LOTs in the third-country market corresponding to differing channels of distribution: (1) Sales to packers and (2) sales to importers. The Department has determined that differing channels of distribution, alone, do not qualify as separate LOTs when selling functions performed for each customer class are sufficiently similar. See 19 CFR 351412(c)(2). We found that the selling functions ACA provided to its reported channels of distribution in the third-country and U.S. markets were virtually the same, varying only by the degree to which warranty services were provided. We do not find the varying degree of warranty services alone sufficient to determine the existence of different marketing stages. See Final Determination of Honey from Argentina 66 FR 50611 (Comment 18); Preliminary Results; Honey from Argentina , 69 FR 62168 (January 6, 2004). Thus, we have determined there is only one LOT for ACA's sales to all markets. See ACA's Analysis Memorandum , dated December 20, 2004.

CAA, HoneyMax, Nexco, Seylinco, and TransHoney reported a single LOT for all U.S. and third-country sales. Each company claimed that its selling activities in both markets are identical, although we note Seylinco sold to two general classes of customers in both the U.S. and Germany. For CAA, HoneyMax, Nexco, Seylinco, and TransHoney, we determine that all reported sales are made at the same LOT, and we have no need to make an LOT adjustment. See Analysis Memoranda for CAA, HoneyMax, Nexco, Seylinco, and TransHoney, dated December 20, 2004.

To determine whether sales of subject merchandise made by CAA, ACA, HoneyMax, Nexco, Seylinco, and TransHoney to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP or CEP, to the NV, as described below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP or CEP of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weight-averaged NV of the foreign like product where there were sales at prices above the COP, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below.

Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the Department normally will use date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the date of invoice if it better reflects the date on which material terms of sale are established. For ACA, the Department, consistent with its practice, used the reported shipment date as the date of sale for both its third-country and U.S. markets since shipment occurred prior to invoice date. See Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada , 68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003), and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 3. 1 CAA, TransHoney, and Nexco reported the earlier of either shipment date or invoice date as the date of sale for both markets. Seylinco reported the invoice date as the date of sale for both markets. HoneyMax reported the shipment date as the date of sale for U.S. sales; however, we used the invoice date for its third-country market sales.

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. * * *,” as adjusted under subsection (c). Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first 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 of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. * * *,” as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d). For purposes of this administrative review, HoneyMax classified all of its U.S. sales as CEP because all of its U.S. sales were made through its wholly owned U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. ACA, CAA, Nexco, Seylinco, and TransHoney have classified their U.S. sales as EP because all of their sales were made before the date of importation directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the U.S. market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have accepted these classifications.

On June 30, 2004, the Department determined that CAA, Mielar, and El Chelibo (Chelibo) are affiliated within the meaning of section 771(3)(B) of the Act, and that the Department should treat the three companies as a single entity for the purposes of this administrative review. See Decision Memorandum of Relationship of CAA, Chelibo and Mielar in the 2002-2003 Administrative Review of AD Order on Honey from Argentina from David Cordell through Robert James to Richard Weible, dated June 30, 2004.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e. , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compare each company's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise. For HoneyMax, Nexco, Seylinco, and TransHoney, the aggregate volume of sales in the home market of the foreign like product was less than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we determined for these companies that sales in the home market did not provide a viable basis for calculating NV.

In addition, section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) provides that the Department may determine that home market sales are inappropriate as a basis for determining NV if the particular market situation would not permit a proper comparison with EP or CEP. During the first review of this order, the Department found a particular market situation rendered the Argentine market inappropriate for the calculation of NV because of, among other reasons, the export-oriented nature of the Argentine honey industry. See Honey from Argentina-Preliminary Results of Anti-Dumping Duty Administrative Review , 69 FR 621 (January 6, 2004) Honey From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (No Changes) 69 FR 30283 (May 27, 2004). On May 4 and May 12, 2004, the Department asked ACA and CAA, respectively, to provide further information in order to evaluate the market situation in Argentina with respect to honey, and on May 12 and May 20, 2004, respectively, ACA and CAA responded to the Department's request. ACA states the circumstances in this review are the same as in the first review, while CAA argues the honey sold in the home market is identical or similar to the honey sold in the United States and in the third-country markets, arguing against finding a “particular market situation” in Argentina. [?USGPO Galley End:?]

On June 30, 2004, the Department determined that a particular market situation does, in fact, exist with respect to ACA's and CAA's sales of honey in Argentina, rendering the Argentine market inappropriate for purposes of determining NV. See Decision Memorandum “Analysis of Particular Market Place Situation” from Angela Strom through Robert James to Richard Weible, dated June 30, 2004.

When sales in the home market are not suitable to serve as the basis for NV, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that sales to a third-country market may be utilized if (i) the prices in such market are representative; (ii) the aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by the producer or exporter in the third-country market is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United States; and (iii) the Department does not determine that a particular market situation in the third-country market prevents a proper comparison with the U.S. price. CAA, Nexco, TransHoney, and Seylinco reported Germany as their largest third-country market during the POR, in terms of volume of sales (and with five percent or more of sales, by quantity, to the United States). ACA reported the United Kingdom as its largest third-country market during the POR, in terms of volume of sales (and with five percent or more of sales to the United States). Honeymax reported Australia as its largest third-country market during the POR, in terms of volume of sales (and with five percent or more of sales to the United States). See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Determination To Revoke the Order in Part, and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile, 67 FR 51186 (August 7, 2002) (selecting the largest third-country market as the basis for NV). The Department preliminarily determines that the prices in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Australia are representative and no particular market situation exists that would prevent a proper comparison to EP or CEP. As a result, for Nexco, TransHoney, CAA, and Seylinco, NV is based on sales to Germany. For HoneyMax, NV is based on sales to Australia. Finally, for ACA, NV is based on sales to the United Kingdom.

In summary, therefore, NV for all companies is based on third-country market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. For NV, we used the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, as appropriate. We calculated NV as noted in the “Price-to-CV Comparisons” and “Price-to-Price Comparisons” sections of this notice.

The Department disregarded certain sales made by ACA to its comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the subject merchandise in the investigation of this antidumping duty order. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 50611 (October 4, 2001) and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 58434 (Nov 21, 2001) (Final Determination). Because the investigation was the most recently completed segment of this proceeding upon initiation of this administrative review, the Department determined there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that ACA made sales in the comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in this review. See section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act. Therefore, we initiated a COP inquiry for ACA to determine whether ACA made sales in the comparison market at prices below the respective COP.

We initiated a company-specific sales-below-cost investigation with respect to ACA. As previously stated in this proceeding, ACA again indicated that it is an exporter, not a producer, of subject merchandise in this review. On March 22, 2004, ACA submitted a list of its unaffiliated honey suppliers, which identified companies, individuals, and cooperatives operating as either producers (beekeepers) or intermediaries (middlemen) in ACA's honey purchases. To calculate a representative COP and CV for the merchandise under consideration, the Department followed the same methodology relied upon in the first administrative review. The Department selected five beekeepers and one middleman from ACA's list of suppliers. See Memorandum to the File: “Cost Respondents,” dated April 23, 2004. On June 17, 2004, the Department notified ACA that it would excuse the selected middleman from responding to the Department's cost questionnaire. The cost information placed on the record by the beekeepers in the current administrative review obviated the need to obtain the middleman costs for purposes of our cost analysis. Thus, as in the previous review, the COP information for ACA was based upon the cost data provided by its five largest beekeeper suppliers.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a COP for each beekeeper supplier based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) expenses. We then added the associated selling expenses that ACA incurred to calculate the final COP figure.

We relied on the COP data submitted by each beekeeper in its cost questionnaire response, except for the adjustments as discussed below.

We adjusted the reported labor costs for all beekeepers. Virtually all of the labor provided was performed by either the owners or by a small number of hired laborers. For reporting purposes, the majority of the cost respondents relied on estimated labor hours and rates for the tasks performed by owners and their employees. Two of the five beekeeper suppliers could not provide any type of supporting documentation for the reported salaries and labor costs reported for their employees. In addition, none of the beekeepers were able to provide support for the reported owners' labor costs. Therefore, to calculate employee labor costs for each of the beekeepers, we relied on the salaries reported for employees from three beekeepers who maintained and provided supporting documentation. For these three beekeepers, we calculated a weighted-average labor cost using the labor costs reported for employees and the quantity of honey produced in kilograms. We then compared this calculated labor cost to the reported labor cost, and used the higher of the two amounts. For the owner's labor costs, we imputed a labor cost retrieved from the Argentine Government's Bulletin For Agricultural Workers. 2 We indexed the owner's salary from the 1995 publication to the November 2003 Argentine Peso Value using the wholesale price index (IPIM). 3 See Cost of Production Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Associacion de Cooperativas Argentinas (“ACA”) Beekeeper Respondents, dated December 20, 2004, (ACA Cost Memorandum).

With respect to feed for their hives, the beekeepers did not keep formal records on consumption rates or inventory. Similar to the previous review, we calculated a per-kilogram feed cost for each beekeeper based on the cost studies from the petition. For each beekeeper, we compared the calculated per-unit feed cost figures to those reported by the beekeeper, and relied on the higher of the two.

For two of the beekeeper cost respondents, we made minor cost adjustments based on information provided in a supplemental questionnaire response and our findings at verification. See (ACA Cost Memorandum).

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

For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on the third-country market prices to unaffiliated purchasers. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, we made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit and other direct selling expenses where appropriate. We note that for certain claimed direct expenses in the third-country market, the Department has re-classified them as indirect for the reasons outlined in the accompanying Analysis Memorandum. See ACA's Sales Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2004.

In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, we based NV on the third-country prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit and other direct selling expenses, where appropriate. We note that for certain claimed direct expenses in the third country market, the Department has re-classified these expenses as indirect for the reasons outlined in the accompanying Analysis Memorandum. See CAA's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2004.

In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, we based NV on the third country market prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C). We also made adjustments, where applicable, for other direct selling expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. During the POR, HoneyMax stored honey at a warehouse owned by an affiliate. Although a contract stipulated a monthly rental fee for the warehouse, in fact, HoneyMax compensated its affiliate for use of the warehouse space by means of improvements made to the warehouse itself. Because no warehouse rent expenses are included in HoneyMax's income statement or part of warehouse expenses in HoneyMax's sales database, we have imputed warehouse rent expenses using the monthly rental fee set forth in the lease between HoneyMax and its affiliate. These changes included a warehouse improvement amortization expense made during the POR from HoneyMax's financial statements as part of HoneyMax's overall warehouse expenses. See HoneyMax Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2004, at 4.

We based NV on the third-country prices to unaffiliated purchasers. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, we made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit and other direct selling expenses where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. See Nexco's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2004.

We based NV on the third-country prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for other direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. See Seylinco's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2004.

We based NV on the third-country prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit and other direct selling expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)C of the Act. See TransHoney's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2004.

We determine that the use of total adverse facts available is appropriate for the preliminary results with respect to Nutrin. Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use facts available if necessary information is not available on the record of the proceeding. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party, if the Department finds an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.”

Nutrin did not respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire; thus, it has failed to supply the information necessary for the Department to conduct a margin analysis for purposes of this review. After requesting this review, Nutrin did not comply with the Department's information requests, neglected to return phone calls from the Department, and failed to place any information on the record throughout the entire course of this review. Nutrin failed to participate in this administrative review and, thus, failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. See Memorandum to the File from Angela Strom (documenting phone calls and Nutrin's failure to respond to the Department's requests), dated April 7, 2004, and Memorandum to the File from Angela Strom (Nutrin's counsel confirming Nutrin would not participate in this review), dated June 24, 2004.

Because Nutrin failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability, we have determined that the application of adverse facts available (AFA) is warranted within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. When making adverse inferences, the Department has the authority to consider the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation, deeming adverse inferences 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 Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994). Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (AFA) 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.

Because no information was placed on the record with respect to Nutrin in this review, the Department was unable to calculate a dumping margin for Nutrin. Consequently, we relied on information from the petition and final determination. Specifically, we are applying to Nutrin the highest margin determined in any segment of this proceeding, 55.15 percent, which was applied to a non-cooperative respondent during the investigation. This is the highest estimated dumping margin, adjusted for export subsidies, set forth in the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination, 66 FR 5834; Notice of Order, 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001).

We note that information from the petition constitutes “secondary information.” See SAA at 870. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA further provides that the word “corroborate” means the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information used has probative value. As explained in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Review, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (TRBs), in order to corroborate secondary information the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. Where circumstances indicate the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. See TRBs at 61 FR 57392; see also Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996).

The implementing regulation for section 776 of the Act, at 19 CFR 351.308(d), states “{t}he fact that corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the Secretary from applying an adverse inference as appropriate and using the secondary information in question.” The SAA also recognizes that the corroboration process must be flexible enough to induce future cooperation from respondents. Specifically, section (b) of the SAA states the fact that corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the Department from applying an adverse inference. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part, 69 FR 70638 (December 7, 2004).

Because the data used to calculate CV in the petition ( i.e. , COP figures, exporter's selling and general expenses (SG&A), and profit rates) were based upon independent sources, foreign market research, and financial statements from the relevant parties involved, the Department believes this information has probative value. In deriving the margin, the Department used the calculated CV and compared it to sales prices derived from foreign market research and U.S. import statistics. The margin of 60.67 percent, adjusted downwardly for export subsidies in the order, ultimately yielded 55.15 percent. See Antidumping Duty Order.

In addition, because Nutrin currently is subject to the “All Others” rate of 30.24 percent, the Department determines that assigning a rate of 55.15 percent will prevent Nutrin from benefitting from its failure to respond to the Department's requests for information. See “The Use of Facts Available for Nutrin S.A. and Corroboration of Secondary Information,” from Richard Weible, Office Director, to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 20, 2004 (Corroboration Memorandum). Further, throughout this proceeding, the highest rate, 55.15 percent, was applied to an uncooperative respondent, Conagra, in the antidumping duty investigation, and this rate continues to apply to the firm. See Notice of Antidumping Order: Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001).

This margin was derived from information in the petition, which was corroborated in the investigation stage of this proceeding. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Honey from Argentina and the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 65831 (November 2, 2000) and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 50611 (October 4, 2001). Because Nutrin failed to cooperate, no additional information has been presented in the current review that would call into question the reliability or relevance of the margin, or the calculation on which it was based. Because there is no information on the record of this review that would render the application of this rate inappropriate or the margin irrelevant, we are applying the highest dumping margin from this proceeding, 55.15 percent, to Nutrin and have satisfied the corroboration requirements under section 776(c) of the Act. See e.g., Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 68 FR 68868 (December 10, 2003); (Results Unchanged) Final Results, 69 FR 33626 (June 16, 2004).

The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coins from France, 68 FR 47049 (August 7, 2003). However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the Argentine Peso. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service. Factiva publishes exchange rates for Monday through Friday only. We used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday for conversion dates involving Saturday through Sunday where necessary.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2002, through November 30, 2003:

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP upon completion of the review.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of honey from Argentina entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

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

(2) For any previously reviewed or investigated company not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in 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) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate from the investigation (30.24 percent). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 50611 (Oct. 4, 2001), Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 58434 (Nov. 21, 2001) (Final Determination), and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (Dec. 10, 2001) (Notice of AD Order).

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

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

On June 9, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden, filed in the proper form by Aqualon Company (Aqualon or petitioner), a division of Hercules Incorporated. See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Purified Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden (Petition). The Department initiated the antidumping investigation of purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden on June 29, 2004. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 69 FR 40617 (July 6, 2004) ( Initiation Notice ). Since the initiation of this investigation, the following events have occurred.

On July 23, 2004, the International Trade Commission (the Commission) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden that are alleged to be sold in the United States at LTFV. See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 69 FR 45851 (July 30, 2004).

On July 29, 2004, the Department issued Sections A, B, and C of the antidumping questionnaire  1 to Noviant CMC OY of Finland (Noviant OY), the sole respondent in this investigation, noting that Appendix V concerning model match criteria was not enclosed. The Department stated that it would serve all parties with a copy of the proposed model match criteria in the near future. We did so on August 18, 2004.

Petitioner filed comments on the Department's proposed model match criteria on July 30, 2004, August, 11, 2004, and August 19, 2004. The respondent submitted rebuttal comments on August 9, 2004 and August 25, 2004. The Department issued its final Appendix V to the questionnaire (model match criteria) on August 30, 2004.

On September 9, 2004, Noviant OY submitted its Section A questionnaire response. On September 15, 2004, Noviant OY, Noviant BV (the Netherlands), and Noviant AB (Sweden) (collectively, the Noviant Group Companies) requested a one-week extension to file the Section B and C responses. On September 17, 2004, the Department granted the Noviant Group Companies' request. On September 24, 2004, Noviant OY notified the Department that it would not be submitting a response to Sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire. Noviant OY cited resource and staff limitations as the reason they could not participate in each parallel proceeding.

On October 25, 2004, the petitioner requested a postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation. On November 3, 2004, the Department published a Federal Register notice postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination until December 16, 2004. See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Investigations , 69 FR 64030 (November 3, 2004).

On October 12, 2004, the petitioner requested that the Department impose total adverse facts available (AFA) based on the respondent's failure to cooperate fully with the Department in this proceeding. The petitioner filed amended AFA calculations and arguments on November 2, 2004, and December 2, 2004. On November 24, 2004, and December 13, 2004, the respondent filed arguments opposing the use of the petitioner's AFA methodology and, as an alternative argument, proffered its own calculations. See the Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available Section of this notice.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.

On November 19, 2004, on behalf of Noviant OY, Noviant BV and Noviant AB, the Noviant Group Companies requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination. Noviant also included a request to extend the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. In addition, on November 19, 2004, petitioners requested that, in the event of a negative determination or de minimis against respondents' imports, that the Department postpone the deadline for its final determination until a date not later than the 135th day after the date on which the Department will have published its notice of preliminary determination.

Accordingly, because we have made an affirmative preliminary determination in this case, and the requesting parties account for a significant portion of exports of the subject merchandise, we are postponing the final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination and are extending the provisional measures accordingly.

The POI is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations ( see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage of the scope of the investigation and encouraged all parties to submit comments on product coverage within 20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice ( See 68 FR 40618). Comments were not submitted for the record of this investigation.

For purposes of these investigations, the products covered are all purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), sometimes also referred to as purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium carboxymethylcellulose that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more purification operations which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent.

The merchandise subject to these investigations is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.

For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of adverse facts available is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect to Noviant OY.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information requested by the Department, fails to provide such information by the deadline or in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information which cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Tariff Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Tariff Act provides that if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the Department's request, the Department shall promptly inform the responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 782(e) of the Tariff Act further states that the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.

In this case, Noviant OY has failed to provide pertinent information requested by the Department that is necessary to properly calculate antidumping margin for its preliminary determination. Specifically, Noviant OY failed to provide the following requested information, all of which is necessary to complete the Department's calculations: (1) Department questionnaire Section B, related to home market sales and expenses, and (2) Department questionnaire Section C, related to U.S. market sales and expenses.

Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Tariff Act, we have based Noviant OY's dumping margin on facts otherwise available.

In applying the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate(PET) Resin From Thailand , 69 FR 62850 (October 28, 2004), Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand , 69 FR 34122 (June 18, 2004), Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Line Pipe From Mexico, 69 FR 59892 (October 6, 2004). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (SAA). Affirmative evidence of bad faith, or willfulness, on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference. See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States , 337 F.3d 1373, 1383-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although the Department provided the respondent with notice of the consequences of failure to adequately respond to the questionnaires in this case, Noviant OY failed to respond to Sections B and C of the questionnaire. This constitutes a failure on the part of Noviant OY to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information by the Department within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan, 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000) (the Department applied total adverse facts available (AFA) where the respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaires).

Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c); SAA at 829-831. In this case, because we are unable to calculate margins based on Noviant OY's own data and because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned to Noviant OY the margin alleged for Finland in the petition, as recalculated in the initiation and described in detail below. See Initiation Notice.

When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Tariff Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition), it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal.

The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. The Department's regulations state independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870.

It is the Department's practice to use the highest calculated rate from the petition in an investigation when a respondent fails to act to the best of its ability to provide the necessary information and there are no other respondents. As discussed in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (TRBs), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.

As noted above in the case history, the petitioner filed comments for an alternative AFA methodology. Noting the initiation rate for Noviant OY was conservative, the petitioner proposed an AFA margin based on cost of production (COP) and constructed value (CV) information gathered from the Noviant OY's financial statements which were included in its Section A questionnaire response.

The respondent argued that the petitioner's alternative AFA calculations were without merit. In a submission filed just three days before the signature date for this preliminary determination, respondent proposed its own alternative AFA calculation based on the COP and CV information available on the record.

The Department intends to evaluate all of the parties' comments on this issue in light of the information and argument placed recently on the record. Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary determination, and consistent with our normal practice, we are relying on the initiation margin for purposes of AFA. Should we choose an alternative basis for AFA subsequent to this preliminary determination, we will provide the parties an opportunity to comment prior to the final determination.

For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis and for this preliminary determination. See “Import Administration Investigation AD Initiation Checklist,” at 6 (June 29, 2004) (Initiation Checklist). Also, as discussed below, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition to determine the probative value of the margins in the petition for use as AFA for this preliminary determination. In accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we examined the key elements of the export price (EP) and normal value (NV) calculations on which the margins in the petition were based. See Memorandum from Brian Sheba to Richard Weible, Re: Corroboration of Data Contained in the Petition for Assigning Facts Available Rates, dated December 16, 2004 (Corroboration Memo).

The petitioner based EP on a price obtained from a potential U.S. customer of purified CMC produced by Noviant OY's plant in Finland. The petitioner calculated net U.S. price by deducting U.S. inland freight expense, ocean freight and marine insurance, documentation fees, port fees, U.S. customs duties, intra-European freight, and foreign inland freight expense. We compared the U.S. market price quotes with official U.S. import statistics and found the prices used by the petitioner to have probative value. See id.

To calculate home market NV, the petitioner met with representatives of a Finnish customer during the POI. During the course of that meeting, the customer stated the current Noviant OY price on a delivered basis. The petitioner's only adjustment to NV is foreign inland freight expense to account for the shipment of the subject merchandise from Noviant OY's plant in Aanekoski, Finland to the customer's plant in Finland. The petitioner obtained this freight expense through a price quote from an independent shipper. To corroborate the petitioner's NV calculations, we compared the prices and expenses used to the source documents upon which the petitioner's methodology was based as well as information submitted in Noviant OY's questionnaire response.

Therefore, based on our efforts, described above, to corroborate information contained in the petition, and in accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, we consider the highest margin in the petition to be corroborated, to the extent practicable, for purposes of this preliminary determination.

Accordingly, in selecting AFA with respect to Noviant OY, we have applied the margin rate of 6.65 percent, which is the margin alleged in the petition as adjusted by the Department for currency conversion. See Initiation Notice, 68 FR 57667.

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act provides that, where the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis margins, or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Tariff Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated “all others” rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. This provision contemplates that the Department may weight-average margins other than the zero, de minimis , or facts available margins to establish the “all others” rate. When the data do not permit weight-averaging such other margins, the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that the Department may use any other reasonable methods. See SAA at 873 (1994). Because the petition contained only one estimated dumping margin, there are no additional estimated margins available with which to calculate the “all others” rate. Therefore, we are using the initiation margin of 6.65 percent as the “all others” rate. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ferrovanadium from the Republic of South Africa, 67 FR 71136 (November 29, 2002).

In accordance with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of purified CMC from Finland that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Tariff Act, we have notified the Commission of our preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value. If our final antidumping determination is affirmative, the Commission will determine whether the imports covered by that determination are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry. The deadline for the Commission's determination would be the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the date of our final determination.

Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 30 days after the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, the Department respectfully requests that all parties submitting written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette.

Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing normally will be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. As noted above, the Department will make its final determination within 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number: Measurement and Engineering Research and Standards—11.609.

Program Description: As part of its research program, since 1970 NIST has awarded Precision Measurement Grants primarily to universities and colleges so that faculty may conduct significant research in the field of fundamental measurement or the determination of fundamental constants. NIST sponsors these grants and cooperative agreements primarily to encourage basic, measurement-related research in universities and colleges and other research laboratories and to foster contacts between NIST scientists and those faculty members of academic institutions and other researchers who are actively engaged in such work. The Precision Measurement Grants are also intended to make it possible for researchers to pursue new ideas for which other sources of support may be difficult to find. There is some latitude in research topics that will be considered under the Precision Measurement Grants Program. The key requirement is that the proposed project support NIST's ongoing work in the field of basic measurement science.

Funding Availability: Applicants should propose multi-year projects for up to three years at no more than $50,000 per year. NIST anticipates spending $100,000 this year for two new grants at $50,000 each for the first year of the research projects. NIST may award both, one, or neither of these new awards. Second and third year funding will be at the discretion of NIST, based on satisfactory performance, continuing relevance to program objectives, and the availability of funds.

Statutory Authority: The authority for the Precision Measurement Grants Program is as follows: As authorized by 15 U.S.C. 272 (b) and (c), NIST conducts directly, and supports through grants, a basic and applied research program in the general area of fundamental measurement and the determination of fundamental constants of nature.

Eligibility: Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; international organizations; and Federal agencies with appropriate legal authority.

Review and Selection Process: All abbreviated proposals and full applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated objectives for each program. Incomplete or non-responsive abbreviated proposals and full applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive abbreviated proposal and full application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.

To simplify the proposal writing and evaluation process, the following selection procedure will be used:

Applicants will initially submit abbreviated proposals, containing a description of the proposed project, including sufficient information to address the evaluation criteria, with a total length of no more than five (5) double spaced pages, to the mailing address given above in the ADDRESSES section. These proposals will be screened to determine whether they address the requirements outlined in this notice. Proposals that do not meet those requirements will not be considered further. Eight independent, objective individuals, at least half of whom are NIST employees, and who are knowledgeable about the scientific areas that the program addresses will conduct a technical review of each proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described in the Evaluation Criteria section for this program. The proposals will then be ranked based on the average of the reviewers' rankings. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but the ranking will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus.

The Chief of the Atomic Physics Division of the Physics Laboratory, the selecting official, will then select approximately four to eight finalists. In selecting finalists, the selecting official will take into consideration the results of the reviewers'evaluations, including rank, and relevance to the program objectives described above in the Program Description section. Applicants not selected as finalists will be notified in writing.

Finalists will then be asked to submit full proposals containing a description of the proposed project, including sufficient information to address the evaluation criteria, with a length of no more than ten (10) double spaced pages in addition to the federally mandated forms and certifications, to the mailing address given above in the ADDRESSES section. The same independent reviewers will then evaluate the detailed proposals based on the same evaluation criteria, and the proposals will be ranked as previously described. In selecting proposals that will be recommended for funding, the selecting official will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank, and relevance to the program objectives described in the Program Description and Objectives section for this program.

The final approval of selected applications and award of grants will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible.

Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award.

The decision of the Grants Officer is final.

Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.

Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria to be used in evaluating the abbreviated application proposals and full proposals are:

1. The importance of the proposed research—Does it have the potential of answering some currently pressing question or of opening up a whole new area of activity?

2. The relationship of the proposed research to NIST's ongoing work—Will it support one of NIST's current efforts to develop a new or improved fundamental measurement method or physical standard, test the basic laws of physics, or provide an improved value for a fundamental constant?

3. The feasibility of the research and the potential impact of the grant—Is it likely that significant progress can be made in a three year time period with the funds and personnel available and that the funding will enable work that would otherwise not be done with existing or potential funding?

4. The qualifications of the applicant—Does the educational and employment background and the quality of the research, based on recent publications, of the applicant indicate that there is a high probability that the proposed research will be carried out successfully?

Each of these factors is given equal weight in the evaluation process.

Cost Share Requirements: The Precision Measurement Grants Program does not require any matching funds.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements: The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), as amended by the Federal Register notice published on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109), are applicable to this announcement. On the form SF-424, the applicant's 9-digit Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number must be entered in the Applicant Identifier block (68 FR 38402).

Collaborations with NIST Employees: All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed by an entity other than the applicant, and the cost of such work should ordinarily be included in the budget.

If an applicant proposes collaboration with NIST, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention, a description of the collaboration, and prominently identify the NIST employee(s) involved, if known. Any collaboration by a NIST employee must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the approval of the proposed collaboration. Any unapproved collaboration will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review.

Use of NIST Intellectual Property: If the applicant anticipates using any NIST-owned intellectual property to carry out the work proposed, the applicant should identify such intellectual property. This information will be used to ensure that no NIST employee involved in the development of the intellectual property will participate in the review process for that competition. In addition, if the applicant intends to use NIST-owned intellectual property, the applicant must comply with all statutes and regulations governing the licensing of Federal government patents and inventions, described at 35 U.S.C. sec. 200-212, 37 CFR part 401, 15 CFR 14.36, and in section 20 of the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements, 66 FR 49917 (2001), as amended by the Federal Register notice published on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109). Questions about these requirements may be directed to the Counsel for NIST, 301-975-2803.

Any use of NIST-owned intellectual property by a proposer is at the sole discretion of NIST and will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a project is deemed meritorious. The applicant should indicate within the statement of work whether it already has a license to use such intellectual property or whether it intends to seek one.

If any inventions made in whole or in part by a NIST employee arise in the course of an award made pursuant to this notice, the United States government may retain its ownership rights in any such invention. Licensing or other disposition of NIST's rights in such inventions will be determined solely by NIST, and include the possibility of NIST putting the intellectual property into the public domain.

Paperwork Reduction Act: The standard forms in the application kit involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Research Projects Involving Human Subjects, Human Tissue, Data or Recordings Involving Human Subjects: Any proposal that includes research involving human subjects, human tissue, data or recordings involving human subjects must meet the requirements of the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects, codified for the Department of Commerce at 15 CFR part 27. In addition, any proposal that includes research on these topics must be in compliance with any statutory requirements imposed upon the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and other federal agencies regarding these topics, all regulatory policies and guidance adopted by DHHS, FDA, and other Federal agencies on these topics, and all Presidential statements of policy on these topics.

On December 3, 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) introduced a new Federal-wide Assurance of Protection of Human Subjects (FWA). The FWA covers all of an institution's Federally supported human subjects research, and eliminates the need for other types of Assurance documents. The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) has suspended processing of multiple project assurance (MPA) renewals. All existing MPAs will remain in force until further notice. For information about FWAs, please see the OHRP Web site at http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/assurance/fwas.htm.

In accordance with the DHHS change, NIST will continue to accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) possessing a current, valid MPA from DHHS. NIST also will accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by IRBs possessing a current, valid FWA from DHHS. NIST will not issue a single project assurance (SPA) for any IRB reviewing any human subjects protocol proposed to NIST.

On August 9, 2001, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement (1) the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and (2) the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being. NIST will follow guidance issued by the National Institutes of Health at http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/stemcell.pdf for funding such research.

Research Projects Involving Vertebrate Animals: Any proposal that includes research involving vertebrate animals must be in compliance with the National Research Council's “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” which can be obtained from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20055. In addition, such proposals must meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq. ), 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3, and if appropriate, 21 CFR part 58. These regulations do not apply to proposed research using pre-existing images of animals or to research plans that do not include live animals that are being cared for, euthanized, or used by the project participants to accomplish research goals, teaching, or testing. These regulations also do not apply to obtaining animal materials from commercial processors of animal products or to animal cell lines or tissues from tissue banks.

Limitation of Liability: In no event will the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige the agency to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds.

Executive Order 12866: This funding notice was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12372: Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act: Notice and comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553 (a)). Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for notices relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

CFDA Name and Number: Measurement and Engineering Research and Standards—11.609.

Program Description: The SURF Gaithersburg program is soliciting applications in the areas of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering, Chemical Science and Technology, Physics, Materials Science and Engineering, Building and Fire Research, and Information Technology.

The SURF Boulder program is soliciting applications in the areas of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Chemical Science and Technology, Physics, Materials Science and Engineering, and Information Technology.

Applications for the Gaithersburg and Boulder programs are separate. Application to one program does not constitute application to the other, and applications will not be exchanged between the Gaithersburg and Boulder programs. If applicants wish to be considered at both sites, two separate applications must be submitted.

Both SURF programs will provide an opportunity for the NIST laboratories and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to join in a partnership to encourage outstanding undergraduate students to pursue careers in science and engineering. The programs will provide research opportunities for students to work with internationally known NIST scientists, to expose them to cutting-edge research and promote the pursuit of graduate degrees in science and engineering.

The NIST SURF Gaithersburg and Boulder Program Directors will work with appropriate department chairs, outreach coordinators, and directors of multi-disciplinary academic organizations to identify outstanding undergraduates (including graduating seniors) who would benefit from off-campus summer research in a world-class scientific environment.

Funds budgeted for payment to students under these programs are stipends, not salary. The SURF Gaithersburg Programs will not authorize funds for indirect costs or fringe benefits. The table below summarizes the anticipated annual funding levels from the NSF to operate our REU (Research Experience for Undergraduates) programs, subject to program renewals and availability of funds. In some programs, anticipated NIST co-funding will supplement the number of awards supported. Program funding will be available to provide for the costs of stipends ($333.33 per week per student), travel, and lodging (up to $2800 per student).

The actual number of awards made under this announcement will depend on the proposed budgets and the availability of funding. For all SURF Gaithersburg Programs described in this notice, it is expected that individual awards to institutions will range from approximately $3,000 to $70,000. Funding for student housing will be included in cooperative agreements awarded as a result of this notice.

The SURF Gaithersburg Programs are anticipated to run from May 23, 2005 through August 12, 2005; adjustments may be made to accommodate specific academic schedules (e.g., a limited number of 9-week cooperative agreements).

Statutory Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278g-l authorizes NIST to fund financial assistance awards to students at institutions of higher learning within the United States. These students must show promise as present or future contributors to the missions of NIST.

Eligibility: NIST's SURF Gaithersburg Programs are open to colleges and universities in the United States and its territories with degree granting programs in materials science, chemistry, engineering, computer science, mathematics, or physics. Participating students must be U.S. citizens or permanent U.S. residents. The SURF Gaithersburg Programs do not require any matching funds.

Review and Selection Process: All SURF Gaithersburg Program proposals are submitted to the Administrative Coordinator. Each proposal is examined for completeness and responsiveness. Incomplete or non-responsive proposals will not be considered for funding, and the applicant will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. Proposals should include the following:

(A) Student Information:

(1) Student application information cover sheet;

(2) Academic transcript for each student nominated for participation (it is recommended that students have a G.P.A. of 3.0 or better, out of a possible 4.0);

(3) A statement of motivation and commitment from each student to participate in the 2005 SURF program, including a description of the student's prioritized research interests;

(4) A resume for each student;

(5) Two letters of recommendation for each student;

(6) Verification of U.S. citizenship or permanent legal resident status for each student; and

(7) Verification of health coverage for each student.

(B) Information About the Applicant Institution:

(1) Description of the institution's education and research programs; and

(2) A summary list of the student(s) being nominated.

Institution proposals will be separated into student/institution packets. Each student/institution packet will be comprised of the required application forms, including a complete copy of the student information and a complete copy of the institution information. The student/institution packets will be directed to the SURF Gaithersburg Program designated by the student as his/her first choice. Each SURF Gaithersburg Program will have three independent, objective NIST employees, who are knowledgeable in the scientific areas of the program, conduct a technical review of each student/institution packet based on the Evaluation Criteria for the SURF Gaithersburg Programs described in this notice. Each technical reviewer will recommend that each student/institution packet be placed into one of three categories: Priority Funding; Fund if Possible; and Do Not Fund. Each student/institution packet will then be placed into one of the three categories by the Program's Director, who will take into consideration the reviewers' recommendations, the relevance of the student's course of study to the program objectives of the NIST laboratory in which that SURF Gaithersburg Program resides as described in the Program Description section of this notice, the relevance of the student's statement of commitment to the goals of the SURF Gaithersburg Program, and the availability of funding.

Student/institution packets placed in the Priority Funding category will be selected for funding in that SURF Gaithersburg Program. Student/institution packets placed in the Do Not Fund category will not be considered for funding.

Student/institution packets placed in the Fund if Possible Category will be considered for funding by the SURF Gaithersburg Program designated by the student as his/her second choice. In making selections for funding, the Director of the student's second choice SURF Gaithersburg Program will take into consideration the recommendations of the reviewers who conducted the technical reviews for the student's first choice SURF Gaithersburg Program, the program objectives of the NIST laboratory in which the student's second choice SURF Gaithersburg Program resides as described in the Program Description and Objectives section of this notice, the relevance of the student's statement of commitment to the goals of the SURF Gaithersburg Program, and the availability of funding.

Students not selected for funding by their first or second choice SURF Gaithersburg Program, and students who did not designate a second choice, will then be considered for funding from all SURF Gaithersburg Programs that still have slots available. In making selections for funding, the SURF Gaithersburg Program Directors will take into consideration the recommendations of the reviewers who conducted the technical reviews for the student's first choice SURF Gaithersburg Program, the program objectives of the NIST laboratory in which their SURF Gaithersburg Program resides as described in the Program Description and Objectives section of this notice, the relevance to the goals of the SURF Gaithersburg Program, and the availability of funding.

Student/institution packets placed in the Fund if Possible category, but not selected through the process described above, will not be funded.

The final approval of selected applications and award of cooperative agreements will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final.

The SURF Gaithersburg Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes, and unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The remaining copies will be destroyed.

Evaluation Criteria: For the SURF Gaithersburg Programs, the evaluation criteria are:

(A) Evaluation of Student's Academic Ability and Commitment to Program Goals: Includes evaluation of completed course work; expressed research interest; compatibility of the expressed research interest with SURF Gaithersburg Program research areas; research skills; grade point average in courses relevant to the SURF Gaithersburg Program; career goals; honors and activities.

(B) Evaluation of Applicant Institution's Commitment to Program Goals: Includes evaluation of the institution's academic department(s) relevant to the discipline(s) of the student(s). Each of these factors is given equal weight in the evaluation process.

Funds budgeted for payment to students under these programs are stipends, not salary. The SURF NIST Boulder Program will not authorize funds for indirect costs or fringe benefits. The table below summarizes the anticipated annual funding levels from the NSF to operate the SURF NIST Boulder program, broken out by Laboratory, subject to program approval and availability of funds. In some Laboratories, anticipated NIST co-funding will supplement the number of awards supported. Program funding will be available to provide for the costs of stipends ($4000 per student for 12 weeks), travel, and lodging (approximately $1800 per student for 12 weeks).

The actual number of awards made under this announcement will depend on the proposed budgets and the availability of funding. For the SURF NIST Boulder Program described in this notice, it is expected that individual awards to institutions will range from approximately $4,000 to $70,000. Funding for student housing will be included in cooperative agreements awarded as a result of this notice.

The SURF NIST Boulder Program is anticipated to run from May 23, 2005 through August 12, 2005; adjustments may be made to accommodate specific academic schedules ( e.g. , a limited number of 12 week cooperative agreements shifted to begin 3 weeks after the regular start in order to accommodate institutions operating on quarter systems).

Statutory Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278g-1.

Eligibility: The SURF NIST Boulder Program is open to colleges and universities in the United States and its territories with degree granting programs in materials science, chemistry, engineering, computer science, mathematics, or physics. Participating students must be U.S. citizens or permanent U.S. residents. The SURF NIST Boulder Programs do not require any matching funds.

Review and Selection Process: All SURF NIST Boulder Program proposals are submitted to the Administrative Coordinator. Each proposal is examined for completeness and responsiveness. Incomplete or non-responsive proposals will not be considered for funding, and the applicant will be so notified. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. Proposals should include the following:

(A) Student Information:

(1) Student application information cover sheet;

(2) Academic transcript for each student nominated for participation (it is recommended that students have a G.P.A. of 3.0 or better, out of a possible 4.0);

(3) A statement of motivation and commitment from each student to participate in the SURF NIST Boulder program, including a description of the student's prioritized research interests;

(4) A resume for each student;

(5) Two letters of recommendation for each student;

(6) Verification of U.S. citizenship or permanent legal resident status for each student; and

(7) Verification of health insurance coverage for each student.

(B) Information About the Applicant Institution:

(1) Description of the institution's education and research programs; and

(2) A summary list of the student(s) being nominated.

Institution proposals will be separated into student/institution packets. Each student/institution packet will be comprised of the required application forms, including a complete copy of the student information and a complete copy of the institution information. The student/institution packets will be directed to a review committee of NIST staff appointed by the SURF NIST Boulder Program Directors. Each SURF Program packet will be reviewed by three independent, objective NIST employees, who are knowledgeable in the scientific areas of the program and are able to conduct a technical review of each student/institution packet based on the Evaluation Criteria for the SURF NIST Boulder Program described in this notice. Each technical reviewer will recommend that each student/institution packet be placed into one of three categories: Priority Funding; Fund if Possible; and Do Not Fund. Each student/institution packet will then be placed into one of the three categories by the SURF NIST Boulder Program Directors, who will take into consideration the reviewers' recommendations, the relevance of the student's course of study to the program objectives of the NIST Boulder Laboratories as described in the Program Description section of this notice, the relevance of the student's statement of commitment to the goals of the SURF NIST Boulder Program, and the availability of funding.

Student/institution packets placed in the Priority Funding category will be selected for funding in the SURF NIST Boulder Program. Student/institution packets placed in the Do Not Fund category will not be considered for funding.

Student/institution packets placed in the Fund if Possible Category will be considered for funding by the SURF NIST Boulder Program when possible. For example, when an award has been declined by another applicant, a back-up will be selected from student/institution packets in this category. In this case, it is likely that either the student's second or third choice of research opportunity would be assigned. In making selections for funding, the SURF NIST Boulder Program Directors will take into consideration the recommendations of the reviewers who conducted the technical reviews, the program objectives of the NIST Boulder laboratory in which the student's requested research opportunity resides as described in the Program Description and Objectives section of this notice, the relevance of the student's statement of commitment to the goals of the SURF NIST Boulder Program, and the availability of funding.

Students not selected for funding for either their first, second or third choice of research opportunities, and students who did not designate a second or third choice, will then be considered for funding from all Boulder Laboratories that still have slots available. In making selections for funding, the SURF NIST Boulder Program Directors will take into consideration the recommendations of the reviewers who conducted the technical reviews, the program objectives of the NIST Laboratory in which their SURF NIST Boulder SURF Program research opportunity resides as described in the Program Description and Objectives section of this notice, the relevance to the goals of the SURF NIST Boulder Program, and the availability of funding.

Student/institution packets placed in the Fund if Possible category, but not selected through the process described above, will not be funded.

The final approval of selected applications and award of cooperative agreements will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final.

The SURF NIST Boulder Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes, and unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The remaining copies will be destroyed.

Evaluation Criteria: For the SURF NIST Boulder Program, the evaluation criteria are: (A) Evaluation of Student's Academic Ability and Commitment to Program Goals: Includes evaluation of completed course work; expressed research interest; compatibility of the expressed research interest with SURF NIST Boulder Program research areas; research skills; grade point average in courses relevant to the SURF NIST Boulder Program; career goals; honors and activities;

(B) Evaluation of Applicant Institution's Commitment to Program Goals: Includes evaluation of the institution's academic department(s) relevant to the discipline(s) of the student(s). Each of these factors is given equal weight in the evaluation process.

The following information applies to both the SURF Gaithersburg Programs and the SURF NIST Boulder Program:

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), as amended by the Federal Register notice published on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109), are applicable to this announcement. On the form SF-424, the applicant's 9-digit Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number must be entered in the Applicant Identifier block (68 FR 38402).

All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed by an entity other than the applicant, and the cost of such work should ordinarily be included in the budget.

If an applicant proposes collaboration with NIST, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention, a description of the collaboration, and prominently identify the NIST employee(s) involved, if known. Any collaboration by a NIST employee must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the approval of the proposed collaboration. Any unapproved collaboration will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review.

If the applicant anticipates using any NIST-owned intellectual property to carry out the work proposed, the applicant should identify such intellectual property. This information will be used to ensure that no NIST employee involved in the development of the intellectual property will participate in the review process for that competition. In addition, if the applicant intends to use NIST-owned intellectual property, the applicant must comply with all statutes and regulations governing the licensing of Federal government patents and inventions, described at 35 U.S.C. sec. 200-212, 37 CFR part 401, 15 CFR 14.36, and in section 20 of the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements, 66 FR 49917 (2001), as amended by the Federal Register notice published on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109). Questions about these requirements may be directed to the Counsel for NIST, 301-975-2803.

Any use of NIST-owned intellectual property by a proposer is at the sole discretion of NIST and will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a project is deemed meritorious. The applicant should indicate within the statement of work whether it already has a license to use such intellectual property or whether it intends to seek one.

If any inventions made in whole or in part by a NIST employee arise in the course of an award made pursuant to this notice, the United States government may retain its ownership rights in any such invention. Licensing or other disposition of NIST's rights in such inventions will be determined solely by NIST, and include the possibility of NIST putting the intellectual property into the public domain.

All applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated objectives for each program. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.

The standard forms in the application kit involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. The use of the Student Application Information sheet has been approved by OMB under Control Number 0693-0042. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Any proposal that includes research involving human subjects, human tissue, data or recordings involving human subjects must meet the requirements of the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects, codified for the Department of Commerce at 15 CFR part 27. In addition, any proposal that includes research on these topics must be in compliance with any statutory requirements imposed upon the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and other federal agencies regarding these topics, all regulatory policies and guidance adopted by DHHS, FDA, and other Federal agencies on these topics, and all Presidential statements of policy on these topics.

On December 3, 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) introduced a new Federal-wide Assurance of Protection of Human Subjects (FWA). The FWA covers all of an institution's Federally supported human subjects research, and eliminates the need for other types of Assurance documents. The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) has suspended processing of multiple project assurance (MPA) renewals. All existing MPAs will remain in force until further notice. For information about FWAs, please see the OHRP Web site at http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/assurance/fwas.htm.

In accordance with the DHHS change, NIST will continue to accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) possessing a current, valid MPA from DHHS. NIST also will accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by IRBs possessing a current, valid FWA from DHHS. NIST will not issue a single project assurance (SPA) for any IRB reviewing any human subjects protocol proposed to NIST.

On August 9, 2001, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement (1) the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and (2) the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being. NIST will follow guidance issued by the National Institutes of Health at http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/stemcell.pdf for funding such research.

Any proposal that includes research involving vertebrate animals must be in compliance with the National Research Council's “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” which can be obtained from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20055. In addition, such proposals must meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq. ), 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3, and if appropriate, 21 CFR part 58. These regulations do not apply to proposed research using pre-existing images of animals or to research plans that do not include live animals that are being cared for, euthanized, or used by the project participants to accomplish research goals, teaching, or testing. These regulations also do not apply to obtaining animal materials from commercial processors of animal products or to animal cell lines or tissues from tissue banks.

This funding notice was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Notice and comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553 (a)). Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The MARLAP Manual provides guidance for the planning, implementation, and assessment phases of those projects that require the laboratory analysis of radionuclides. This guidance is intended for project planners, managers, and laboratory personnel. MARLAP was developed collaboratively over the past eight years by the technical staffs of eight Federal agencies. State participation in the development of the manual involved contributions from representatives from the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the State of California. Contractors of the DOE, EPA, and NRC, and members of the public, have been present during the open meetings of the MARLAP work group and were provided opportunities for input.

MARLAP is organized into two parts. Part I, intended primarily for project planners and managers, provides the basic framework of the directed planning process as it applies to projects requiring radioanalytical data for decision making. Part II is intended primarily for laboratory personnel. Seven appendices provide complementary information and additional details on specific topics.

Because of its length, the printed version of MARLAP is bound in three volumes. Volume I (Chapters 1 through 9 and Appendices A through E) contains Part I. Part II is split between Volumes II and III. Volume II (Chapters 10 through 17 and Appendix F) covers most of the activities performed at radioanalytical laboratories, from field and sampling issues that affect laboratory measurements through waste management. Volume III (Chapters 18 through 20 and Appendix G) covers laboratory quality control, measurement uncertainty and detection and quantification capability. Each volume includes a table of contents, list of acronyms and abbreviations, and a complete glossary of terms.

The MARLAP Manual benefitted from extensive internal, public, and technical peer reviews. Before the publication of the draft version for public comment, the participating agencies conducted internal reviews. These internal review comments were addressed before public comments were requested. The public review was a necessary and important step in the development of the final multi-agency consensus document. The document also received formal technical peer review under the auspices of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB). SAB's comments and EPA's responses are available at http://www.epa.gov/science1/fiscal03.htm.

In addition to commenting on individual chapters and appendices, reviewers were requested to address the following questions while reviewing the MARLAP Manual:

(1) Is the performance-based approach for the planning, implementation, and assessment phases of projects technically sound, and is the approach reasonable in terms of ease of implementation by project managers and laboratories? Does the approach effectively link the three phases of a project, and is the guidance on quality control appropriate and supportive of a performance-based approach?

(2) Is the guidance on laboratory operations in Part II technically accurate and useful?

(3) Are the concepts covered under measurement statistics, specifically measurement uncertainty and detection and quantification capability, presented accurately and appropriately?

(4) Is the information understandable and presented in a logical sequence? How can the presentation of material be modified to improve the manual?

The participating agencies continue to solicit comments arising from review and use of the final MARLAP Manual. Comments will be reviewed periodically by the participating agencies, resolved as appropriate, and incorporated into future revisions of the manual. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Docket No. OAR-2004-0096, MC 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments may be submitted electronically at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/marlap.

NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

As required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1982), notice is hereby given of meetings of MAFAC. MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on February 17, 1972, to advise the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. This Committee advises and reviews the adequacy of living marine resource policies and programs to meet the needs of commercial and recreational fisheries, and environmental, state, consumer, academic, tribal, and other national interests.

1. January 11, 2005, 9:15 a.m.-5 p.m.

2. January 12, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

3. January 13, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.

4. January 14, 2005, 1 p.m.-3 p.m.

General overview and full committee discussion regarding NOAA's ecosystem management initiatives and how they relate to fisheries management, and review and status of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act reauthorization.

Overview and full committee discussion of cold water coral management initiatives, FY 2005 budget review, recreational fisheries strategic plan and program initiative, and review of newly revised Office of Constituent Services and programs.

The MAFAC will meet for a morning overview and discussion of aquaculture legislative initiatives and status of regional research programs.

The full committee of MAFAC will meet in the afternoon to receive reports and take final action. Committee will adjourn sine day on completion of business.

Time will be set aside for public comment on agenda items.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to MAFAC (see ADDRESSES ).

On August 20, 2004, notice was published in the Federal Register (69 FR 51637) that a request for a scientific research permit to take sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of 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. 1494 is a five-year permit authorizing St. George's School to annually capture 50 loggerhead, 5 green, 5 hawksbill and 5 Kemp's ridley sea turtles by hand or dip net. Animals will be weighed, measured, flipper tagged and released. The applicant will also collect tissue samples from the loggerhead, green and hawksbill species and import the samples to the U.S. The purpose of the research is to study habitat utilization and migratory behavior of these species.

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

The commercial availability provision of the CBTPA provides for duty-free and quota-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary CBTPA country from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States if it has been determined that such yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and certain procedural requirements have been met. In Presidential Proclamation 7351, the President proclaimed that this treatment would apply to apparel articles from fabrics or yarn designated by the appropriate U.S. government authority in the Federal Register . In Executive Order 13191, the President authorized CITA to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner.

On August 12, 2004, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Sandler, Travis, and Rosenberg, P.A., on behalf of Picacho, S.A., alleging that certain woven, 100 percent cotton, napped fabrics, of detailed specifications, classified in indicated HTSUS subheadings, for use in shirts, trousers, nightwear, robes, dressing gowns, and woven underwear, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting quota- and duty-free treatment under the CBTPA for such apparel articles that are both cut and sewn in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from such fabrics. On August 18, 2004, CITA requested public comment on the petition. See Request for Public Comment on Commercial Availability Petition under the United States - Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) (69 FR 51269). On September 3, 2004, CITA and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) sought the advice of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee for Textiles and Clothing and the Industry Trade Advisory Committee for Distribution Services. On September 3, CITA and USTR offered to hold consultations with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate (collectively, the Congressional Committees). On August 25, 2004, the U.S. International Trade Commission provided advice on the petitions.

Based on the information and advice received and its understanding of the industry, CITA determined that the fabrics set forth in the petition cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On October 5, 2004, CITA and USTR submitted a report to the Congressional Committees that set forth the action proposed, the reasons for such action, and advice obtained. A period of 60 calendar days since this report was submitted has expired.

CITA hereby designates as eligible for preferential treatment under HTSUS subheading 9820.11.27, products covered by textile categories 340, 341, 347, 348, 350, 351, and woven underwear in category 352, that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more eligible CBTPA beneficiary countries, from certain woven, 100 percent cotton, napped fabrics, of the specifications detailed below, classified in the indicated HSTUS subheadings, not formed in the United States, provided that all other fabrics are wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, subject to the special rules for findings and trimmings, certain interlinings and de minimis fibers and yarns under section 112(d) of the CBTPA, and that such articles are imported directly into the customs territory of the United States from an eligible CBTPA beneficiary country.

The textile and apparel safeguard provision of the Accession Agreement provides for the United States and other members of the World Trade Organization that believe imports of Chinese origin textile and apparel products are, due to market disruption, threatening to impede the orderly development of trade in these products to request consultations with China with a view to easing or avoiding the disruption. Pursuant to this provision, if the United States requests consultations with China, it must, at the time of the request, provide China with a detailed factual statement showing “(1) the existence or threat of market disruption; and (2) the role of products of Chinese origin in that disruption.” Beginning on the date that it receives such a request, China must restrict its shipments to the United States to a level no greater than 7.5 percent (6 percent for wool product categories) above the amount entered during the first 12 months of the most recent 14 months preceding the request. If exports from China exceed that amount, the United States may enforce the restriction.

The Committee has published procedures (the Procedures) it follows in considering requests for Accession Agreement textile and apparel safeguard actions (68 FR 27787, May 21, 2003; 68 FR 49440, August 18, 2003), including the information that must be included in such requests in order for the Committee to consider them.

On November 24, 2004, the Requestors asked the Committee to reapply an Accession Agreement textile and apparel safeguard action on imports from China of dressing gowns and robes (Category 350/650) on the ground that an anticipated increase in imports of dressing gowns and robes after December 23, 2004, threatens to disrupt the U.S. market for dressing gowns and robes. The request is available at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/Safeguard_intro.htm. In light of the considerations set forth in the Procedures, the Committee has determined that the Requestors have provided the information necessary for the Committee to consider the request.

The Committee is soliciting public comments on the request, in particular with regard to whether there is a threat of disruption to the U.S. market for dressing gowns and robes and, if so, the role of Chinese-origin dressing gowns and robes in that disruption. To this end, the Committee seeks relevant information addressing factors such as the following, which may be relevant in the particular circumstances of this case, involving a product under a quota that will expire on December 23, 2004: (1) Whether imports of dressing gowns and robes from China are entering, or are expected to enter, the United States at prices that are substantially below prices of the like or directly competitive U.S. product, and whether those imports are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices of the like or directly competitive U.S. product or are likely to increase demand for further imports from China; (2) whether exports of Chinese-origin dressing gowns and robes to the United States are likely to increase substantially and imminently (due to existing unused production capacity, to capacity that can easily be shifted from the production of other products to the production of dressing gowns and robes, or to an imminent and substantial increase in production capacity or investment in production capacity), taking into account the availability of other markets to absorb any additional exports; (3) whether Chinese-origin dressing gowns and robes that are presently sold in the Chinese market or in third-country markets will be diverted to the U.S. market in the imminent future (for example, due to more favorable pricing in the U.S. market or to existing or imminent import restraints into third country markets); (4) the level and the extent of any recent change in inventories of dressing gowns and robes in China or in U.S. bonded warehouses; (5) whether conditions of the domestic industry of the like or directly competitive product demonstrate that market disruption is likely (as may be evident from any anticipated factory closures or decline in investment in the production of dressing gowns and robes, and whether actual or anticipated imports of Chinese-origin dressing gowns and robes are likely to affect the development and production efforts of the U.S. dressing gowns and robes industry; and (6) whether U.S. managers, retailers, purchasers, importers, or other market participants have recognized Chinese producers of dressing gowns and robes as potential suppliers (for example, through pre-qualification procedures or framework agreements).

Comments may be submitted by any interested person. Comments must be received no later than January 26, 2005. Interested persons are invited to submit ten copies of such comments to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001A, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The Committee will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. To the extent that business confidential information is provided, two copies of a non-confidential version must also be provided in which business confidential information is summarized or, if necessary, deleted. Comments received, with the exception of information marked “business confidential”, will be available for inspection between Monday and Friday, 8:30 a.m and 5:30 p.m in the Trade Reference and Assistance Center Help Desk, Suite 800M, USA Trade Information Center, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, (202) 482-3433.

The Committee will make a determination within 60 calendar days of the close of the comment period as to whether the United States will request consultations with China. If the Committee is unable to make a determination within 60 calendar days, it will cause to be published a notice in the Federal Register , including the date by which it will make a determination. If the Committee makes a negative determination, it will cause this determination and the reasons therefore to be published in the Federal Register . If the Committee makes an affirmative determination that imports of Chinese-origin dressing gowns and robes threaten to disrupt the U.S. market, the United States will request consultations with China with a view to easing or avoiding the disruption.

Federal solicitations normally do not specify delivery schedules that will require overtime at the Government's expense. However, when overtime is required under a contract and it exceeds the dollar ceiling established during negotiations, the contractor must request approval from the contracting officer for overtime. With the request, the contractor must provide information regarding the need for overtime.

Respondents: 1,270.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses

Hours Per Response: .25.

Total Burden Hours: 318.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0065, Overtime, in all correspondence.

The SDDC provides global surface deployment command and control and distribution operations to meet National Security objectives in peace and war. To carry out its mission, SDDC works with industry partners in several program areas: Freight Domestic Distribution Program; Freight Global Distribution Program; Passenger Traffic Management Program; Personal Property Traffic Management Program. Most industry partners only provide services in one or two of the program areas, so the survey design provides for transparently skipping respondents only to the sections that are relevant to them. These voluntary partnership surveys will continue to be a collaborative effort to obtain feedback for improving the SDDC business processes.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1043.

Title: Telecommunication Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CC Docket No. 90-571 ( Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration ), FCC 04-137.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 7.

Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 70 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: On June 30, 2004, the Commission released the Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, (Report and Order) In the Matter of Telecommunication Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CC Docket No. 90-571, FCC 04-137. In the Report and Order, the Commission grants Video Relay Service (VRS) waiver requests of the following Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) mandatory minimum requirements: (1) 47 CFR Section 64.604 (a)(3) types of calls that must be handled; (2) 47 CFR Section 64.604 (a)(3)(iv) pay-per-call services; (3) 47 CFR Section 64.604 (a)(4) emergency call handling; (4) 47 CFR Section 64.604 (b)(2) speed of answer; and (5) 47 CFR Section 64.604 (b)(3) equal access to interexchange carriers. These waivers are granted provided that VRS providers submit an annual report to the Commission, in a narrative form, detailing: (1) The provider's plan or general approach to meet the waived standards; (2) any additional costs that would be required to meet the standards; (3) the development of any new technology that may affect the particular waivers; (4) the progress made by the provider to meet the standards; (5) the specific steps taken to resolve any technical problems that prohibit the provider from meeting the standards; and (6) any other factors relevant to whether the waivers should continue in effect. Further, as requested by the parties and for administrative convenience, VRS providers may combine the reporting requirement established in the Report and Order with existing VRS/IP Relay reporting requirements, which are scheduled to be submitted annually on April 16th of each year pursuant to the IP Relay Order on Reconsideration and Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission affirms, except as otherwise specifically provided therein, the cost recovery methodology for VRS established in the June 30, 2003 Bureau TRS Order. The Commission adjusts the VRS compensation rate to a per-minute compensation rate of $8.854. On June 30, 2004, the Commission also released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Telecommunication Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 04-137, that addressed a number of outstanding issues with respect to VRS and IP Relay, none of which have any implications under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0874.

Title: Slamming Complaint Form, FCC Form 475.

Form Number: FCC 475.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; State, local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 83,287.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 41,644 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes.

Needs and Use: FCC Form 475 allows the Commission to collect detailed data from consumers of the practices of common carriers. The information contained in the collection also allows consumers to provide the FCC with the relevant information required to help consumers develop a concise statement outlining the issue in dispute. The Commission uses the information to assist in resolving informal complaints and the collect data required to assess the practices of common carriers. The Commission has revised FCC Form 475, Consumer Complaint Form to consolidate and streamline the data requirements. In particular, consumers using FCC Form 475 need only prepare and submit this single document instead of submitting multiple documents to seek redress of their concerns; thus, the Commission believes that this revised form will significantly improve the complaint process for consumers, common carriers, and the FCC staff.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0798.

Title: FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio Service Authorization.

Form No: FCC Form 601.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local and tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 250,520.

Estimated Time Per Response: .5—1.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and every ten year reporting requirements, third party disclosure requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 219,205 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $50,104,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 601 is a multi-purpose form used to apply for an authorization to operate radio stations, amend pending applications, modify existing licenses and perform a variety of other miscellaneous tasks in the Public Mobile Services, Personal Communications Services, General Wireless Communications Services, Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Broadcast Auxiliary Services, Fixed Microwave Services, Maritime Services (excluding ships), and Aviation Services (excluding aircraft). The FCC Form 601 has been revised to now include the use of the frequencies in the 764-776 and 794-806 MHz bands pursuant to Part 90, Subpart R (ET Docket No. 97-157); adding an eligibility statement for the specified radio service; an applicant certification for the construction period; and to clarify existing instructions for the general public.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0944.

Title: Review of Commission Consideration of Applications Under the Cable Landing License Act.

Form No: Not Applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 25 respondents; 200 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1—40 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and quarterly reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 1,001 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $402,175.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Not Applicable.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is requesting an extension (no change) to this information collection. The increase in costs for outside legal and engineering assistance changed from $150 to $200 per hour. As a result, the OMB 83i and supporting statement reflects an adjustment of +$50,000. Additionally, we recalculated our estimate for the total annual burden hours. In the International E-Filing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission sought comment on eliminating paper filings and requiring applicants to file electronically all applications and other filings related to international telecommunications services via the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). Among other proposals, the Commission proposed the development of several cable landing license forms that impact this information collection. They include, but are not limited to, the following forms: (1) Submarine Cable Landing License (SCL) Amendment—amendment of an application to correct information required for the processing of the original application; (2) SCL Assignment—application to assign a license, or a portion of it, from one entity to another; (3) SCL Landing Point Notification—notification of specific description of the landing stations in the U.S. and foreign countries where the cable will land; and (4) SCL Transfer of Control of License—application to transfer control of a license. The projected completion date for these applications is December 31, 2005. It is anticipated that the Commission will adopt and release a Report and Order in 2005 to implement decisions proposed in the NPRM. The specific decisions are contingent upon comments received from the public and other pertinent factors. After the Report and Order is released by the Commission and the SCL forms are completed, this information collection will be revised to reflect the decisions made in the Report and Order and the implementation of the new forms.

GSA Form 3357 is needed by GSA contract and staff appraisers who use the form for estimating parking rates assessed on Federal agencies occupying space in GSA owned or controlled buildings.

Respondents: 260.

Responses Per Respondent: 5.

Total Responses: 1300.

Hours Per Response: 1.6.

Total Burden Hours: 2,080.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (V), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0043, GSA Form 3357, Appraisal of Fair Annual Parking Rate Per Space for Standard Level User Charge, in all correspondence.

Section 814 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (the Act), as amended, requires ANA to provide notice of its proposed interpretive rules, statements of policy and rule of agency organization, procedure or practice. These proposed clarifications, modifications and new text will appear in the three ANA FY 2005 program announcements: SEDS, Native Language and Environmental. This notice serves to fulfill this requirement.

ANA has revised Part Two, “Application Review Criteria” of the FY 2005 Program Announcement, specifically the Application Submission Requirements. Previously, ANA required applicants to include and count the Objective Work Plan (OWP) form (OMB Control Number 0980-0204), and the Federal and non-Federal share line-item budget and budget justification narrative in the page limitation. In FY 2005, ANA has removed the OWP and the line-item budget and budget justification narrative from the page limitation. With the exemption of the OWP and the budget section from the page limitation, ANA has reduced in the FY 2005 program announcements the Application Submission Requirements to 40 pages. The exemption of the OWP and the budget from the page limitation will enable applicants applying for multi-year awards to provide more information on the proposed project. (Legal authority: Section 803 (a) and (d) and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3.)

The Grant Application Data Summary (GADS) form (OMB Clearance Number 0970 0261 exp. 03/31/2007) is a new ANA form. The Commissioner for the Administration for Native Americans is required to collect and disseminate information related to the social and economic conditions of Native Americans for inclusion in its annual report to Congress. The data collected on the GADS is required to assist in gathering that data. The information is also used to ensure that ANA obtains the proper number of reviewers to review each category of grant applications. Although not included in prior announcements, GADS received OMB approval after the publication of the FY 2004 announcement. It will be included in this announcement and future announcements to be submitted as a part of the application package. (Legal authority: Section 803B of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991B-2.)

(a) ANA has modified five evaluation criteria titles and adjusted the point values and weight of three criteria. In ANA's FY 2004 grant competitions, ANA did not rate applications on how closely they followed the prescribed format. This year, ANA is proposing to revise the Evaluation Criteria to provide for the award of points in rating applications based on whether the applicant complied with the requirements in the announcement with regard to the organization of the application. ANA will maintain six evaluation criteria and the titles and merit weight apply to all three ANA program areas. Criterion One was retitled from “Project Introduction and Summary/Abstract” to “Introduction and Project Summary/Application Format” and modified to add points for the Application Format to clarify the importance of adhering to the application requirements. Criterion Two was retitled from “Objectives and Need for Assistance” to “Need for Assistance”. Criterion Three was retitled for clarity from “Approach” to “Project Approach”. Criterion Four was retitled from “Organizational Profiles” to “Organizational Capacity” and the point value was reduced to allow for the increase in weight and points awarded under Criterion One. Criterion Five was retitled for clarity from “Results or Benefits Expected” to “Project Impact/Evaluation” and the point value was reduced to allow for the increase in weight and points awarded under Criterion Six. For FY 2005 program announcements the titles and assigned point criteria values are: Criterion One—Introduction and Project Summary/Application Format (10 pts.); Criterion Two—Need for Assistance (20 pts.); Criterion Three—Project Approach (25 pts.); Criterion Four—Organizational Capacity (15 pts.); Criterion Five—Project Impact/Evaluation (15 pts.); Criterion Six—Budget and Budget Justification/Cost Effectiveness (15 pts.). (Legal authority: Section 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3.)

(b) In the FY 2004 Program Announcement within the ANA Criterion Five, ANA used the term “Performance” Indicator. In the FY 2005 Program Announcement this term will be changed to “Impact” Indicator to be consistent with the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended. (Legal authority: Section 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3.)

(c) Standard and Required Impact Indicators: As ANA continues to improve its competitive grant program ANA has modified (through addition or deletion) its collection of impact indicators under each of its programs (SEDS, Native Language and Environmental). The modified impact indicators will continue to be used to inform Congress and the public on the effectiveness, success and impact that ANA programs have in Native American communities and on behalf of Native American families. Two impact indicators will be required across all three program areas to serve as a common baseline of data that is required to be reported in ANA's legislation to demonstrate the diversity of projects and to monitor the impact of projects on the community. The FY 2005 program announcements still require five impact indicators to be submitted by the applicant under Criterion Five. ANA has standardized for consistency and program performance data collection two of the required impact indicators across all three program areas (SEDS, Native Language and Environmental). The two standard required impact indicators are: (1) number of partnerships formed and (2) the amount of dollars leveraged beyond the required NFS match. In addition to the two standard required impact indicators, an applicant must also submit three additional indicators either selected from a suggested list in each program announcement or applicant project-specific impact indicators. (Legal authority: Section 803(a) and (d), 803B and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b, 2991b-2 and 2991b-3.)

The optional impact indicators for SEDS are: (1) Number of infrastructures and administrative systems, including policies and procedures developed and implemented; (2) number of codes or ordinances developed and implemented; (3) number of people to successfully complete a workshop/training; (4) number of children, youth, families or elders assisted or participating; (5) number of volunteer hours; (6) number of faith-based or community-based partnerships; (7) number of jobs created; (8) number of community-based small businesses established or expanded; (9) identification of Tribal or Village government business, industry, energy or financial codes or ordinances that were adopted or enacted; and (10) number of micro-businesses started. The optional impact indicators for Language, Category I are: (1) Number of surveys completed; (2) percent and number of community members assessed; (3) the rate of language loss or gain; (4) number of elders consulted; (5) number of language experts consulted; (6) number of community goals developed to preserve the native language; and (7) number of infrastructure and administrative systems, including policies and procedures developed and implemented. (Legal authority: Section 803(a) and (d), 803B and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b, 2991b-2 and 2991b-3.)

The optional impact indicators for Language, Category II are: (1) Number of people involved in establishment or operation of project; (2) number of training classes or workshops held to teach language; (3) number and type of materials developed; (4) number of media products developed; (5) number of translations achieved; (6) number of individuals who increased in ability to speak the language; (7) number of participants who achieve fluency; (8) number of settings the language is spoken in; and (9) number of infrastructure and administrative systems, including policies and procedures developed and implemented. (Legal authority: Section 803(a) and (d), 803B and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b, 2991b-2 and 2991b-3.)

The optional impact indicators for Environmental are: (1) Number of environmental regulations, codes or ordinances created; (2) number of people to successfully complete a workshop/training; (3) number of workshops/trainings provided; (4) types of capacity building systems created and implemented to support environmental program functions; (5) identification of Tribal or Village government regulations, codes or ordinances that were enacted and adopted; (6) number of regulations, codes or ordinances successfully enforced; and (7) number of infrastructure and administrative systems, including policies and procedures developed and implemented. ANA may add/delete optional impact indicators to program announcements as necessary to support ANA initiatives. (Legal authority: Section 803(a) and (d), 803B and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b, 2991b-2 and 2991b-3.)

(d) ANA corrected the timeframe for use of research data in an application from 48 to 36 months under the Language, Category II program.

In ANA's effort to streamline its program announcements and to clarify Funding Restriction Policies for applicants, ANA has relocated general policy statements from the criterion section of the program announcement text to the Funding Restrictions Policies section. Formerly listed under “ANA Administrative Policies”, the bullet point on funding requests for feasibility studies, business plans, marketing plans or written materials and the bullet point on proposals from consortia of Tribes were moved to the section entitled “ANA Funding Restrictions”. These restrictions are already reflected in the ANA eligibility restrictions at 45 CFR 1336.33(b) (2) and (b) (6). The bullet point on the social service delivery programs was inadvertently omitted from previous announcements, but ANA is statutorily required to address these programs. The restriction already appears in the ANA eligibility regulation at 45 CFR 1336.33(b) (3). ANA will include the following funding restrictions in all program announcements in compliance with sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3 and 45 CFR 1336:

• Projects that request funds for feasibility studies, business plans, marketing plans or written materials, such as manuals, that are not an essential part of the applicant's project or SEDS long-range development plan. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3 and 45 CFR 1336.33.)

• The support of ongoing social service delivery programs or the expansion, or continuation, of existing social service delivery programs. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3 and 45 CFR 1336.33.)

• Proposals from consortia of Tribes that are not specific to support from and roles of member Tribes. An application from a consortium must 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 that duplicates activities for which member Tribes also receive funding from ANA. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3 and 45 CFR 1336.33.)

Prior to competitive panel review, all applications are pre-screened for completeness. Previously, each application submitted to ANA in response to a program announcement was pre-screened to ensure that (a) The application was received by the program announcement closing date; (b) the application was submitted in accordance with Section IV, “Application and Submission Information”; (c) the applicant is eligible for funding in accordance with Section III, “Eligibility Information”; (d) the applicant submitted the proper supporting documentation such as proof of non-profit status, resolutions, and required government forms; (e) an authorized representative has signed the application; and (f) the applicant has a DUNS number. An application that does not meet (a) through (f) immediately above is determined to be incomplete and is excluded from the competitive review process.

In an effort to ensure consistency with the way ACF evaluates competitive discretionary grant applications, ACF has changed its policy to include only two enforceable screen-out criteria: timeliness and compliance with stated funding limitations. Additionally, ACF has approved ANA's request to include two additional screen-out criteria: inclusion of a signed and dated resolution by the governing body and, for applicants that are not Tribes or Alaska Native Village governments, submission of a resolution and proof that a majority of the governing board of directors is representative of the community to be served.

Consequently, ANA will screen applications for completeness prior to the competitive panel review using the following elements: (a) The application is received by ANA on or before the published program announcement closing date; (b) the Federal request does not exceed the ceiling award amount as published in the program announcement; (c) the application includes a signed and dated resolution of the governing body; and (d) if the applicant is not a Tribe or Alaska Native village government, the native non-profit organization submits a resolution and proof that a majority of the governing board of directors is representative of the community to be served. An application that does not contain these elements will be considered incomplete and excluded from the competitive review process.

In ANA's effort to streamline its program announcements and to clarify administrative policies for applicants, ANA has relocated general policy statements from the Criterion section of the program announcement text to the Administrative Policies section. ANA has also clarified administrative policies that have historically prompted numerous questions and created application and project development inconsistencies. For example, ANA removed “Organizational Capacity” and reworded the first bullet below for clarity. The second bullet below clarifies the administrative policy on the funding of projects versus programs to include the term “short-term” to communicate that projects will not be awarded for longer than three years in most program areas. The third and fourth bullets were moved from Definitions to Administrative Policies to establish the policy to determine project progress before additional funding is committed. For the purposes of clarity, the fifth bullet combined and reworded the requirement for community involvement under the definition for “Community Involvement” with a similar paragraph under “Need for Assistance”. The sixth bullet supports the needs of ANA and was reworded for clarity. The seventh bullet was also reworded for clarity. The policy on the treatment of multiple applications and applications from Tribal components has been reworded for clarity and broken into two separate points to ensure application to both Tribes and non-profit organizations. The revised policy is contained in the eighth and ninth bullet points of the list below. The ninth bullet corrects the inadvertent omission of the categories that apply to the board of directors for non-profit applicants. ANA will now include the following administrative policies in each program announcement (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, and 45 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3):

Applicants must comply with the following administrative policies:

• All funded applications will be reviewed to ensure that the applicant has provided a positive statement to give credit to ANA on all material developed using ANA funds.

• ANA funds short-term projects, not programs. Proposed projects must have definitive goals and objectives that will be achieved by the end of the project period. All projects funded by ANA must be completed, or self-sustaining or supported by other-than-ANA funding at the end of the project period.

• Before funding the second or third year of a multi-year grant, ANA will require verification and support documentation from the grantee that objectives and outcomes proposed in the preceding year were accomplished and that the non-Federal share was met.

• ANA reviews the quarterly and annual reports of grantees to determine if the grantee is meeting its goals, objectives and activities identified in the Objective Work Plan (OWP).

• Applications from national and regional organizations must clearly demonstrate a need for the project, explain how the project originated, discuss the community-based delivery strategy of the project, identify and describe the intended beneficiaries, describe and relate the actual project benefits to the community and organization and describe a community-based delivery system. National and regional organizations must describe their membership, define how the organization operates and demonstrate Native community and/or Tribal government support for the project. The type of community to be served will determine the type of documentation necessary to support the project.

• Applicants proposing an Economic Development project must 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.

• ANA will review proposed projects to ensure applicants have considered all resources available to the community to support the project.

• ANA will not accept applications from Tribal components that are Tribally authorized divisions unless the ANA application includes a Tribal resolution.

• ANA will only accept one application per eligible entity. The first application received by ANA will be the application considered for competition unless ANA is notified in writing which application should be considered for competitive review.

• If the applicant, other than a Tribe or an Alaska Native Village government, is proposing a project benefiting Native Americans, Alaska Natives, or both, the applicant must provide assurance that its duly elected or appointed board of directors is representative of the community to be served. Applicants must provide information that at least a majority of the individuals serving on a non-profit applicant's board fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) A current or past member of the community to be served; (2) a prospective participant or beneficiary of the project to be funded; or (3) have a cultural relationship with the community to be served. (Legal authority: 45 CFR 1336.33(a).)

This is a clarification to the ANA Environmental Regulatory Enhancement program announcement funding threshold. The funding threshold for the Environmental Regulatory Enhancement program will be $50,000.00 (floor amount) to $250,000.00 (ceiling amount) per budget period. Applications exceeding the $250,000.00 threshold will be considered non-responsive and will not be considered for funding under this announcement. (Legal authority: Sections 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3.)

The following definitions will be used in the appropriate program-specific FY 2005 program announcements. ANA has clarified many areas that applicants have historically found difficult to understand and that have previously prompted numerous questions and created application and project development inconsistencies. The ANA program announcements will now include additional definitions for the following terms:

Consortium/Tribal Village: A group of Tribes or Villages that join together for long-term purposes or for the purpose of an ANA grant.

Impact Indicators: Measurement descriptions used to identify the outcomes or results of the project. Outcomes or results must be quantifiable, measurable, verifiable and related to the outcome of the project to determine that the project has achieved its desired objective and can be independently verified through ANA monitoring and evaluation.

Objective Work Plan (OWP): The project plan the applicant will use in meeting the results and benefits expected for the project. The results and benefits are directly related to the Impact Indicators. The OWP provides detailed descriptions of how, when, where, by whom and why activities are proposed for the project and is complemented and condensed in the OWP. ANA will require separate OWPs for each year of the project. (Form OMB# 0980-0204 exp 10/31/2006.)

Minor Renovation or Alteration: 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. Minor alteration and renovation may include work referred to as improvements, conversion, rehabilitation, remodeling or modernization, but is distinguished from construction and major renovations. A minor alteration and/or renovation must be incidental and essential for the project (“incidental” meaning the total alteration and renovation budget must not exceed the lesser of $150,000 or 25 percent of total direct costs approved for the entire project period).

Total Approved Project Costs: The sum of the Federal request plus the non-Federal share. (Legal authority: Section 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3.)

To ensure that grantees fulfill their obligations to ANA, ANA is including a review of grantees' past performance when considering the applicant for a new or ongoing award under all three program areas. The inclusion of this item in the application consideration process will assist ANA in making its funding decisions on whether or not to award to a particular grant applicant. Factors that may impact a grantee's past performance are their timeliness to report submission requirements, timely use and proper expenditure of the grant award funds and the administrative ease of closing out the grantee at the end of the award period.

The following statement is included under the Application Consideration for the Review and Selection Process:

Application Consideration: The Commissioner's funding decision is based on an analysis of the application by the review panel, panel review scores and recommendations; an analysis by ANA staff; review of previous ANA grantee's past performance; comments from State and Federal agencies having contract and grant performance-related information; and other interested parties.

The title for Native Language Category I grants has been changed from “Native Language Category I Planning” to “Native Language Category I Assessment”. The change clarifies the purpose of the 12-month Category I grant. (Legal authority: Section 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3.)

The FY 2005 Native Language Program Announcement expands the Category I—Program Area of Interest and the necessary assessment data to be collected. ANA recommends each applicant consider the Program Area of Interest in the development of a project. The Program Area of Interest under Category I is “A project for data collection and compilation that surveys the current language status through a “formal” method ( e.g. , work performed by a linguist and/or a language survey conducted by community members) or an “informal” method ( e.g. , a community consensus of the language status based on elders, Tribal scholars and/or other community members) with the development of long-range language preservation goals and uses elders in the development of these goals. This assessment data should capture, at a minimum, the following data: number of speakers; age of speakers; gender of speakers; level(s) of fluency; number of first language speakers (native language as the first language acquired); number of second language speakers (native language as the second language acquired); where native language is used ( e.g. , home, court system, religious ceremonies, church, media, school, governance or cultural activities); source of data (formal and/or informal); and rate of language loss or gain. (Legal authority: Section 803(a) and (d) and 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2991b and 2991b-3.)

In the Federal Register of August 11, 2004 (69 FR 48876), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0557. The approval expires on December 31, 2007. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

In the Federal Register of October 1, 2004 (69 FR 58915), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0558. The approval expires on December 31, 2007. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

The total burden estimate of 43,214 is based on the number of notifications received by the relevant FDA centers in fiscal year 2004, or the last year the figures available.

The respondents to this information collection are exporters who have notified FDA of their intent to export unapproved products that may not be sold or marketed in the United States as allowed under section 801(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 381). In general, the notification identifies the product being exported (e.g., name, description, and in some cases, country of destination) and specifies where the notification should be sent. These notifications are sent only for an initial export; subsequent exports of the same product to the same destination (or, in the case of certain countries identified in section 802(b) of the act (21 U.S.C. 382), to any of those countries would not result in a notification to FDA.

The recordkeepers to this information collection are exporters who export human drugs, biologics, devices animal drugs, foods and cosmetics that may not be sold in the United States to maintain records demonstrating their compliance with the requirements in section 801(e)(1) of the act.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Under sections 505, 512, 513, 515, and 903 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act); (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, 360c, 360e, and 393); and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), FDA has the responsibility to ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics, and devices. Under section 502(a) of the act (21 U.S.C. 352(a)), a drug or device is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading. Under section 502(f)(1) of the act it is misbranded if it fails to bear adequate warnings, and under section 502(j), it is misbranded if it is dangerous to health when used as directed in its labeling.

Under section 4 of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (the DSHEA) (21 U.S.C. 341), section 402 of the act (21 U.S.C 342) is amended so that FDA must bear the burden of proof to show a dietary supplement is unsafe.

To carry out its responsibilities, the agency needs to be informed whenever an adverse event, product problem or error with use of a medication or device occurs. Only if FDA is provided with such information will the agency be able to evaluate the risk, if any, associated with the product, and take whatever action is necessary to reduce or eliminate the public's exposure to the risk through regulatory action. To ensure the marketing of safe and effective products, certain adverse events must be reported. Requirements regarding mandatory reporting of adverse events or product problems have been codified in parts 310, 314, 600, and 803 (21 CFR parts 310, 314, 600, and 803), specifically §§ 310.305, 314.80, 314.98, 600.80, 803.30, 803.50, 803.53, and 803.56.

To implement these provisions for reporting of adverse events, product problems and medication/device use errors for FDA regulated products such as medications, devices, biologics, special nutritional products, and cosmetics, as well as any other products that are regulated by FDA, two forms are available from the agency. Form FDA 3500 may be used for voluntary (i.e., not mandated by law or regulation) reporting by healthcare professionals and the public. Form FDA 3500A is used for mandatory reporting (i.e., required by law or regulation).

Respondents to this collection of information are healthcare professionals, hospitals and other user-facilities (e.g., nursing homes, etc.), consumers, manufacturers of biological and drug products or medical devices, and importers.

The voluntary version of the form is used to submit all reports not mandated by Federal law or regulation. Individual health professionals are not required by law or regulation to submit reports to the agency or the manufacturer, with the exception of certain adverse reactions following immunization with vaccines as mandated by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Those mandatory reports are not submitted to FDA on the 3500 or 3500A form, but are submitted to the joint FDA/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccines Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) on the VAERS-1 form. (See http://www.vaers.org/pdf/vaers_for.pdf. )

Hospitals are not required by Federal law or regulation to submit reports associated with drug products, biological products or special nutritional products. However, hospitals and other user facilities are required by Federal law to report medical device-related deaths and serious injuries.

Manufacturers of dietary supplements do not have mandatory requirements for reporting adverse reactions to FDA. The DSHEA puts the responsibility on FDA to prove that a particular product is unsafe. The agency depends on the voluntary reporting by health professionals and consumers of suspected adverse events associated with the use of dietary supplements.

In sections 505(j) and 704 (21 U.S.C. 374) of the act, Congress has required that important safety information relating to all human prescription drug products be made available to FDA so that it can take appropriate action to protect the public health when necessary. Section 702 of the act authorizes investigational powers to FDA for enforcement of the act. These statutory requirements regarding mandatory reporting have been codified by FDA under parts 310 and 314 (drugs) and 600 (biologics). Parts 310, 314, and 600 mandate the use of FDA Form 3500A form for reporting to FDA on adverse events that occur with drugs and biologics.

Section 519 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360i) requires manufacturers and importers, of devices intended for human use to establish and maintain records, make reports, and provide information as the Secretary of Health and Human Services may by regulation reasonably require to assure that such devices are not adulterated or misbranded and to otherwise assure its safety and effectiveness. The Safe Medical Device Act of 1990, signed into law on November 28, 1990, amends section 519 of the act. The amendment requires that user facilities such as hospitals, nursing homes, ambulatory surgical facilities, and outpatient treatment facilities report deaths related to medical devices to FDA and to the manufacturer, if known. Serious illnesses and injuries are to be reported to the manufacturer or to FDA if the manufacturer is not known. These statutory requirements regarding mandatory reporting have been codified by FDA under part 803. Part 803 mandates the use of FDA Form 3500A for reporting to FDA on medical devices.

The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA), Public Law 107-250, signed into law October 26, 2002, amended section 519 of the act. The amendment (section 303 of MDUFMA) required FDA to revise the MedWatch forms “to facilitate the reporting of information . . . relating to reprocessed single-use devices, including the name of the reprocessor and whether the device has been reused.”

The proposed modifications to Form FDA 3500 and Form FDA 3500A reflect changes that will bring the form into conformation with current regulations, rules, and guidances. Modifications were also made to better reflect the range of reportable products and language was changed slightly to provide clarity. The changes should allow reporters to better utilize available space for data entry and offer voluntary reporters the opportunity to better characterize the suspected adverse event, product problem or error and provide better quality safety-related data for agency evaluation.

In the proposed modification to current section D, Suspect Medical Device, the agency has relettered the form section and modified the formatting slightly, moving two of the data elements (“Device available for evaluation” and “Concomitant medical products”) to adjacent lettered sections on the form in order to improve the utilization of available space and allow for information on non-device products to share these data fields. The agency believes that these changes are compatible with the mandatory reporting instructions for devices (§ 803.33) and will allow mandatory reporters to continue to meet their reporting requirements.

FDA estimates the burden for completing the forms for this collection of information as follows:

The figures shown in table 1 of this document are based on actual fiscal year 2003 reports and respondents for each center and type of report.

In the Federal Register of October 20, 2004, FDA published a notice announcing a public meeting on November 15, 2004, and soliciting comments on FDA's premarket notification program for NDIs with an opportunity for public comment for 45 days. FDA requested comments from industry, consumers, and other interested members of the public concerning the content and format requirements for NDI notifications made under section 413(a)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)(2)). FDA held this meeting to give the public an opportunity to provide information and views on topics outlined in the notice. The agency intends to consider all comments received in the meeting and sent to the docket in determining whether any future action is necessary or appropriate.

The agency has received a request from a number of trade associations for an extension of the comment period to and including February 1, 2005. The request set forth several reasons in support of allowing additional time to submit comments. First, according to the request, the 45-day comment period did not allow sufficient time for interested parties to adequately address the large number of detailed and specific questions put forth by FDA and the significant impact on industry, especially small businesses, of the issues raised in the notice. The request noted that the questions (many of which contained subparts) will require extended industry discussion to ensure broad input from member firms and to organize the information obtained from their member companies. Second, the request noted that the original December 3, 2004, deadline for submitting comments did not provide interested parties enough time to consider the transcript of the November 15, 2004, meeting in developing their comments. The request explained that an extension until February 1, 2005, would allow industry to submit more focused and detailed comments without significantly delaying the agency's consideration of the issues set forth in the meeting notice.

FDA has considered the request and is reopening the comment period for the October 20, 2004, notice until February 1, 2005. The agency agrees that reopening the comment period will allow adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying the agency's consideration of the issues set forth in the October 20, 2004, notice.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding the issues raised in the October 20, 2004, notice. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.

These meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may close early if all business is finished.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, telephone the Designated Federal Official as soon as possible.

Under 46 CFR 16.230, the Coast Guard requires marine employers to establish random drug testing programs for covered crewmembers on inspected and uninspected vessels. All marine employers are required to collect and maintain a record of drug testing program data for each calendar year, January 1 through December 31. You must submit this data by 15 March of the following year to the Coast Guard in an annual MIS report.

You may either submit your own MIS report or have a consortium or other employer representative submit the data in a consolidated MIS report. The chemical drug testing data is essential to analyze our current approach for deterring and detecting illegal drug abuse in the maritime industry.

Since 2003 MIS data indicates that the positive random testing rate is greater than one percent industry-wide (2.07 percent), the Coast Guard announces that the minimum random drug testing rate is set at 50 percent of covered employees for the period of January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, in accordance with 46 CFR 16.230(e).

Each year we will publish a notice reporting the results of the previous calendar year's MIS data, and the minimum annual percentage rate for random drug testing for the next calendar year.

This Notice informs the public that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has submitted to OMB, for emergency processing, a proposed revision to the currently approved information collection for selecting applicants for the Emergency Capital Repair Program grants.

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Emergency Capital Repair Program.

Description of Information Collection: This is a revision to the currently approved information collection for selecting applicants for the Assisted Living Conversion Program grants.

Congress has introduced a new facet to the ALCP authorizing Emergency Capital Repair grant funding for Owners of projects that need to correct situations that present immediate threats to the life, health and safety of project tenants. This emergency capital repair grant funding will be used to repair or replace major building and structural components as well as mechanical equipment to the extent they are necessary for health and safety reasons.

OMB Control Number: 2502-0542.

Agency Form Numbers: Standard Forms 424, 424-Supplemental, LLL and HUD forms 424B, 424-C, 2880, 2990, 2991, 96010, 2530, 50080-ALCP, 50080-ECRG, 27300, 92045.

Members of Affected Public: Not-for-profit project owners.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of responses, and hours of response: An estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 3,360. The estimated number of respondents is 30, and the frequency of response is on occasion.

Status: Revision of a currently approved collection.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee et seq ) requires a CCP. The purpose in developing CCPs is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife science, conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, the CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update these CCPs at least every 15 years in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370d).

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1939 as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and for use as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds. Located in central Wisconsin, the Refuge includes 43,696 acres consisting of wetlands and open water areas, pine, oak, and aspen forests, grasslands, and rare savannas.

Three alternatives were considered in the EA: (1) No action; (2) follow the course set in the 1979 Master Plan; or (3) follow the course established in the CCP (preferred alternative). Significant issues addressed in the CCP include the proposal to acquire land within the Yellow River Focus Area and management of endangered species that use the Refuge, including the Eastern massassagua rattlesnake, the Karner blue butterfly, and a migratory flock of Whooping Cranes. There was strong public interest in the plan, and the Service provided many opportunities for public comment in meetings in the community. Following a 60-day comment period on the Draft CCP (65 FR 46940, August 1, 2000), a revised Draft CCP was produced and another 60-day comment period was provided (66 FR 52776, October 17, 2001). The plan was revised to address the issues raised by the public, including the decision to reduce the area within the Yellow River Focus Area where land acquisition would be one of the tools available to facilitate restoration and conservation efforts. Assistance to local landowners would remain the priority means of habitat restoration and conservation throughout the Focus Area. It has been determined that the CCP is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above).

Applicant: John M. Searles, Flint, MI, PRT-093993.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

Applicant: Nicholas A. Russo, Sr., Allentown, NJ, PRT-094471.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The applications were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq. ), and the regulations governing marine mammals (50 CFR Part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director.

Applicant: John F. Byrnes, Omaha, NE, PRT-091493.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Northern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal use.

Applicant: Mark E. Buchanan, San Diego, CA, PRT-094374.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (Ursus maritimus) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population in Canada for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ), and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq. ), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ), and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq. ), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

This notice of invitation will be published in The News-Record of Gillette, WY, once each week for two consecutive weeks beginning the week of November 22, 2004, and in the Federal Register . Any party electing to participate in this exploration program must send written notice to both the Bureau of Land Management and Powder River Coal Company no later than thirty days after publication of this invitation in the Federal Register . The written notice should be sent to the following addresses: Powder River Coal Company, Attn: Les Petersen, P.O. Box 3034, Gillette, WY 82717, and the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Branch of Solid Minerals, Attn: Mavis Love, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82003.

The foregoing is published in the Federal Register pursuant to 43 CFR 3410.2-1(c)(1).

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the BLM Idaho Falls District (IFD), which covers eastern Idaho. At this meeting, topics we plan to discuss include:

• Sage Grouse Conservation strategies (BLM national, and State of Idaho if completed).

• A presentation about tribal treaty rights by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.

• The South Fork of the Snake River Activity Plan (Upper Snake Field Office) public outreach opportunities.

• Idaho Falls District operations plan.

• Other current issues as appropriate.

• Other items of interest raised by the Council.

All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below.

The environmental analysis for Sale 199 will focus primarily on new issues that may have arisen since the completion of the EIS for Sales 191 and 199 (November 2003). A consistency determination will be prepared for the sale and will include analysis of any approved changes that may have occurred in the State's coastal management plan. The process will lead to identification of the area to be included in the proposed Notice of Sale. Each of these steps, including the proposed Notice of Sale, provides for a public review period. At the culmination of each step and after analysis of any public comments, the MMS will decide whether to proceed to the next step. This process will:

• Focus the environmental analysis on impact types and levels that may have changed since the analysis was done for Sale 191;

• Clearly highlight any new issues for the public;

• Eliminate the need for costly preparation and public review of a repetitive, voluminous new EIS for Sale 199; and

• Result in a more efficient and responsive application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The MMS will analyze all comments received in response to this RFI and re-examine information previously submitted in response to the Call and the draft and final EISs for Sales 191 and 199. The MMS will then identify the issues to be analyzed in the NEPA document.

This RFI does not indicate a decision to lease in the area described below. Final delineation of the areas for possible leasing will be made after completion of the pre-sale steps described above and in compliance with the current 5-year program and applicable laws, including all requirements of the NEPA and the OCS Lands Act.

This RFI is published pursuant to the OCS Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331-1356, (1994)) (OCS Lands Act), and the regulations issued thereunder (30 CFR 256); and in accordance with the 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2002 to 2007.

The purpose of the RFI is to gather information for Oil and Gas Lease Sale 199 in the Cook Inlet, scheduled for May 2006. Information on oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development and production within the Cook Inlet are sought from all interested parties. This early planning and consultation step is important for ensuring that all interests and concerns are communicated to the Department of the Interior for decisions in the leasing process.

The Call for Information and Nominations published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2001, requested information and nominations from industry for Sales 191 and 199 in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. The MMS will use the information submitted in response to that Call and any new information submitted in response to this RFI to determine the area that will be included in a NEPA analysis. The public need not re-submit comments sent in response to the multiple-sale Call. A company need not re-submit its areas of interest if its comments or indications of interest have not changed since that time. This request seeks to identify new concerns and new areas of interest to industry.

The area covered by this RFI is located offshore the State of Alaska in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. This area consists of approximately 517 whole and partial blocks (about 2.5 million acres). A page-size map of the area accompanies this Notice. A large scale RFI map showing the boundaries of the area on a block-by-block basis is available without charge from the Records Manager at the address given below, or by telephone request at (907) 334-5207 or 1-800-764-2627. Copies of Official Protraction Diagrams (OPDs) are also available at the following location: Alaska OCS Region, Minerals Management Service, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503.

In addition, the OPDs are available on the MMS Web site at http://www.mms.gov/ld/alaska.htm.

The RFI map delineates the area that is the subject of this request. Respondents are requested to indicate interest in and comment on any or all of the Federal acreage within the boundaries of the RFI area that they wish to have included in Cook Inlet Sale 199. Comments should be sent to the Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment, Alaska OCS Region, at the address or Public Connect Web site as stated above in the comment period section.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. Under some circumstances, MMS may withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

The MMS requests industry to submit any new information, including nomination of blocks that are of significant interest for exploration and development and production. Information and nominations submitted in response to the multiple-sale Call for Sales 191 and 199, published on December 31, 2001 (66 FR 67543), will also be considered as information and nominations for the Sale 199 area identification process.

Nominations must be depicted on the RFI map by outlining the area(s) of interest along block lines. Nominators are asked to submit a list of whole and partial blocks nominated (by OPD and block number) to facilitate correct interpretation of their nominations on the Request for Information map. Although the identities of those submitting nominations become a matter of public record, the individual nominations are proprietary information.

Nominators also are requested to rank blocks nominated according to priority of interest [e.g., priority 1 (high), or 2 (medium)]. Blocks nominated that do not indicate priorities will be considered priority 3 (low). Nominators must be specific in indicating blocks by priority and be prepared to discuss their range of interest and activity regarding the nominated area(s). The telephone number and name of a person to contact in the nominator's organization for additional information should be included in the response. This person will be contacted to set up a mutually agreeable time and place for a meeting with the Alaska OCS Regional Office to present their views regarding the company's nominations.

Comments also are sought on potential conflicts with approved local coastal management plans that may result from the sale and future OCS oil and gas activities. These comments should identify specific coastal management plan policy of concern, the nature of the conflicts foreseen, and steps that MMS could take to avoid or mitigate the potential conflicts. Comments may be in terms of broad areas or restricted to particular blocks of concern. Commenters are requested to list block numbers or outline the subject area on the large-scale RFI map.

Information submitted in response to this RFI will be used for several purposes. Responses will be used to:

• Help to further identify areas of potential oil and gas development;

• Identify environmental effects and potential use conflicts not previously addressed in the Final EIS and Consistency Determination for Sales 191 and 199 (OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2003-055);

• Develop any additional lease terms and conditions/mitigating measures that may be necessary; and

• Identify any potential conflicts between oil and gas activities and the Alaska coastal management plan not addressed in the Consistency Determination for Sale 191.

The MMS has acquired a substantial amount of information, including that gained through the use of traditional knowledge, on the issues and concerns related to oil and gas leasing in the Cook Inlet.

An extensive environmental, social, and economic studies program has been underway in this area since 1975. The emphasis has been on geologic mapping, environmental characterization of biologically sensitive habitats, endangered whales and marine mammals, physical oceanography, ocean-circulation modeling, and ecological and socio-cultural effects of oil and gas activities.

Information on the studies program, completed studies, and a program status report for continuing studies in this area is available on the MMS Web site http://www.mms.gov/alaska, or may be obtained from the Chief, Environmental Studies Section, Alaska OCS Region, by telephone request at (907) 334-5230, or by written request at the address stated under Description of Area. A request may also be made via the Alaska OCS Region Web site at http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/pubindex/pubsindex.htm.

The following is a list of tentative milestone dates applicable to Cook Inlet Sale 199 covered by this RFI:

The NOI is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (1988)].

Pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), MMS is announcing its intent to prepare an environmental assessment for Cook Inlet Oil and Gas Lease Sale 199, scheduled for May 2006. The environmental assessment will be prepared to determine if significant new issues or impacts not previously addressed in the EIS for Sales 191 and 199 have arisen. If no significant new issues or impacts are identified, a Finding of No New Significant Impacts will be issued. If information is submitted in response to this Request for Information or found by MMS analysts that identifies environmentally significant new issues and/or impacts not previously addressed, a supplemental EIS may be prepared.

Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments and other interested parties are requested to send their written comments on new information and issues that should be addressed in the environmental assessment to the Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment, Alaska OCS Region, at the address or Public Connect Web site as stated above in the comment period section.

The Commission instituted this investigation on June 8, 2004, based on a complaint filed by Thomas J. Baumgartner and Hillbilly Smokehouse, Inc., both of Rogers, Arkansas. 69 FR 32044. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 337 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain pet food treats that infringe U.S. Design Patent No. 383,886 (“the '886 patent”). The notice of investigation lists six companies as respondents, including LLB Holdings, LLC, of Aiea, Hawaii (“LLB”). On August 11, 2004, the ALJ issued Order No. 4, which granted a motion by UPG to intervene in place of LLB. The Commission determined not to review that ID.

On June 23, 2004, the same day that UPG filed its motion to intervene, it also filed a motion for partial summary determination of non-infringement. Complaints and the Commission investigative attorney filed responses in opposition to UPG's motion for summary determination. On November 22, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (order No. 10) granting UPG's motion for summary determination. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and sections 210.19 and 210.42 of the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.19 and 210.42.

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 as amended, 30 U.S.C. 941, and 20 CFR 725.533(e) authorizes the Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation (DCMWC) to pay compensation to coal miner beneficiaries. Once a miner or survivor is found eligible for benefits, the primary beneficiary is requested to report certain changes that may affect black lung benefits. The CM-929 is used to help determine continuing eligibility of primary beneficiaries receiving black lung benefits from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. The CM-929 is completed by the beneficiary to report factors that may affect his or her benefits, including income, marital status, receipt of state workers' compensation and dependents' status. This information collection is currently approved for use through June 30, 2005.

The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submissions of responses.

The Department of Labor seeks the approval of the extension of this information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to verify the accuracy of information in the beneficiary's claims file, and to identify changes in the beneficiary's status, to ensure that the amount of compensation being paid the beneficiary is accurate.

Type of Review: Extension.

Agency: Employment Standards Administration.

Titles: Report of Changes That May Affect Your Black Lung Benefits.

OMB Number: 1215-0084.

Agency Numbers: CM-929.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Total Respondents: 51,000.

Total Annual Responses: 51,000.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4,505.

Estimated Time Per Response: 5 to 8 minutes.

Frequency: Biennially.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $0.

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

You may submit comments and supporting materials in response to this notice by (1) hard copy, (2) fax transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through the OSHA Web page. Because of security related problems, there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627) for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery and messenger service.

All comments, submissions and background documents are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Web page are available at http://www.OSHA.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the OSHA Web page and for assistance using the Web page to locate docket submissions.

Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice as well as other relevant documents are available on OSHA's Web page.

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent ( i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. ) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657).

The standard entitled “Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories” (29 CFR 1910.1450; the “Standard”) applies to laboratories that use hazardous chemicals in accordance with the Standard's definitions for “laboratory use of hazardous chemicals” and “laboratory scale.” The Standard requires these laboratories to maintain employee exposures at or below the permissible exposure limits specified for the hazardous chemicals in 29 CFR Part 1910, subpart Z. They do so by developing a written Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP) that describes: Standard operating procedures for using hazardous chemicals; hazard-control techniques; equipment-reliability measures; measures; employee information-and-training programs; conditions under which the employer must approve operations, procedures, and activities before implementation; and medical consultations and examinations. The CHP also designates personnel responsible for implementing the CHP, and specifies the procedures used to provide additional protection to employees exposed to particularly hazardous chemicals.

Other information-collection requirements of the Standard include: Documenting exposure-monitoring results; notifying employees in writing of these results; presenting specified information and training to employees; establishing a medical surveillance program for overexposed employees; providing required information to the physician; obtaining the physician's written opinion using proper respiratory equipment and establishing, maintaining, transferring, and disclosing exposure-monitoring and medical records. These collection-of-information requirements, including the CHP, control employee overexposure to hazardous laboratory chemicals, thereby preventing serious illnesses and death among employees exposed to such chemicals.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

—Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

—The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

—The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

—Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

OSHA is proposing to extend the information collection requirements in the Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories standard (29 CFR part 1910.1450). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information collection requirements contained in the Standard.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information collection requirements.

Title: Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories (29 CFR 1910.1450).

OMB Number: 1218-0131.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; State, local, or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 43,300.

Frequency of Response: Annually; monthly; occasionally.

Average Time per Response: Varies from five minutes (.08 hour) for a variety of requirements (e.g., for an office clerk to develop and post exposure-monitoring results) to eight (8) hours for an employer to develop a Chemical Hygiene Plan.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 270,636.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $32,615,952.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq. ), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).

You may submit comments and supporting materials in response to this notice by (1) hard copy, (2) fax transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through the OSHA Webpage. Because of security related problems, there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627) for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery and messenger service.

All comments, submissions and background documents are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Webpage are available at http://www.OSHA.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the OSHA Webpage and for assistance using the Webpage to locate docket submissions.

All comments, submissions and background documents are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. Comments and submissions posed on OSHA's Webpage are available at http://www.OSHA.gov . Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the OSHA Webpage and for assistance using the Webpage to locate docket submissions.

Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice as well as other relevant documents are available on OSHA's Webpage. Since all admissions become public, private information such as social security numbers should not be submitted.

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent ( i.e. , employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and cost) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657).

The following provisions of 29 CFR part 1926, subpart R (the “Subpart”) contain paperwork requirements: §§ 1926.752(a)(1) and (a)(2); 1926.753(c)(5) and (e)(2); 1926.757(a)(7), (a)(9), and (e)(4)(i); 1926.758(g); 1926.760(e) and (e)(1); 1926.761; and paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of Appendix G. These provisions ensure that: Designated parties, especially steel erectors, receive notice that building materials, components, steel structures, and fall-protection equipment are safe for specific uses; and employees exposed to fall hazards receive the required training in the recognition and control of fall hazards. These paperwork requirements provide a direct and efficient means for controlling contractors and steel erectors to inform others ( e.g. , employees) of steel-erection hazards and their control, thereby preventing death and serious injury by ensuring that structural steel members remain stable and that employees use fall protection correctly.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and cost) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

OSHA is proposing to extend the information collection requirements in 29 CFR par 1926, Subpart R (“Steel Erection”). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information collection requirements contained in the Standard.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information collection requirement.

Title: Subpart R Steel Erection 29 CFR 1926.750 through 1926.761.

OMB Number: 1218-0241.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit: not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; State, local, or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 20,781.

Frequency of Response: Varies from one occurrence per project for most of the paperwork requirement to 10 occurrences per project for an employer to have a qualified rigger determine that it is safer to hoist and place purlins and single joists using deactivated safety latches on hooks rather than allowing the latches to remain activated.

Average Time per Response: Varies from one minute for a controlling contractor to inform a steel erector to leave fall protection at the jobsite to three hours for controlling contractors to obtain approval from the project structural engineer of record before modifying anchor bolts.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 30,786.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).