[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 47 (Friday, March 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12181-12185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-1029]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-850]
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Live Swine From Canada
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 20, 2004, the Department of Commerce published a
preliminary determination in the antidumping duty investigation of live
swine from Canada. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment
on the preliminary determination. Based upon the results of
verification and our analysis of the comments received, we have made
certain changes. We continue to find that live swine from Canada were
sold in the United States below normal value during the period of
investigation. The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed
below in the section entitled ``Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation.''
DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole Kyle or Andrew Smith, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1503 or (202) 482-1276, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 20, 2004, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published in the Federal Register the preliminary
determination in its investigation of live swine from Canada. See
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Postponement of Final Determination:
[[Page 12182]]
Live Swine From Canada, 69 FR 61639 (October 20, 2004) (``Preliminary
Determination'').
Since the Preliminary Determination, the following events have
occurred:
On October 25, 2004, Excel requested that the Department reconsider
its preliminary decision to rescind its selection of Excel as a
mandatory respondent in this investigation.
On November 3, 2004, the Department decided to verify Excel's
questionnaire responses.
On November 29, 2004, Premium Pork Canada, Inc. (``Premium Pork'')
withdrew from this investigation.
In November and December 2004, and January 2005, we conducted
verifications of the sales and cost of production (``COP'')
questionnaire responses submitted by Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing
Board (``Ontario Pork''), Hytek, Inc. (``Hytek''), and Excel Swine
Services, Inc. (``Excel'') at each company's headquarters and at
certain farm locations. We issued verification reports in January 2005.
We received case and rebuttal briefs from the Illinois Pork
Producers Association, the Indiana Pork Advocacy Coalition, the Iowa
Pork Producers Association, the Minnesota Pork Producers Association,
the Missouri Pork Association, the Nebraska Pork Producers Association,
Inc., the North Carolina Pork Council, Inc., the Ohio Pork Producers
Council, and 119 individual producers of live swine \1\ (collectively,
hereinafter, ``the petitioners''), Excel, Hytek, Ontario Pork, and
Baxter Transport, Ltd., J. Quintaine & Son, Ltd., and Zantingh Swine
Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alan Christensen, Alicia Prill-Adams, Aulis Farms, Baarsch
Pork Farm, Inc., Bailey Terra Nova Farms, Bartling Brothers Inc.,
Belstra Milling Co. Inc., Berend Bros. Hog Farm LLC, Bill Tempel, BK
Pork Inc., Blue Wing Farm, Bornhorst Bros, Brandt Bros., Bredehoeft
Farms, Inc., Bruce Samson, Bryant Premium Pork LLC, Buhl's Ridge
View Farm, Charles Rossow, Cheney Farms, Chinn Hog Farm, Circle K
Family Farms LLC, Cleland Farm, Clougherty Packing Company, Coharie
Hog Farm, County Line Swine Inc., Craig Mensick, Daniel J. Pung,
David Hansen, De Young Hog Farm LLC, Dean Schrag, Dean Vantiger,
Dennis Geinger, Double ``M'' Inc., Dykhuis Farms, Inc., E & L
Harrison Enterprises, Inc., Erle Lockhart, Ernest Smith, F & D
Farms, Fisher Hog Farm, Fitzke Farm, Fultz Farms, Gary and Warren
Oberdiek Partnership, Geneseo Pork, Inc., GLM Farms, Greenway Farms,
H & H Feed and Grain, H & K Enterprises, LTD, Ham Hill Farms, Inc.,
Harrison Creek Farm, Harty Hog Farms, Heartland Pork LLC, Heritage
Swine, High Lean Pork, Inc., Hilman Schroeder, Holden Farms Inc.,
Huron Pork, LLC, Hurst AgriQuest, J D Howerton and Sons, J. L.
Ledger, Inc., Jack Rodibaugh & Sons, Inc., JC Howard Farms, Jesina
Farms, Inc., Jim Kemper, Jorgensen Pork, Keith Berry Farms, Kellogg
Farms, Kendale Farm, Kessler Farms, L.L Murphrey Company, Lange
Farms LLC, Larson Bros Dairy Inc., Levelvue Pork Shop, Long Ranch
Inc., Lou Stoller & Sons, Inc., Luckey Farm, Mac-O-Cheek, Inc.,
Martin Gingerich, Marvin Larrick, Max Schmidt, Maxwell Foods, Inc.,
Mckenzie-Reed Farms, Meier Family Farms Inc., MFA Inc., Michael
Farm, Mike Bayes, Mike Wehler, Murphy Brown LLC, Ned Black and Sons,
Ness Farms, Next Generation Pork, Inc., Noecker Farms, Oaklane
Colony, Orangeburg Foods, Oregon Pork, Pitstick Pork Farms Inc.,
Prairie Lake Farms, Inc., Premium Standard Farms, Inc., Prestage
Farms, Inc., R Hogs LLC, Rehmeier Farms, Rodger Schamberg, Scott W.
Tapper, Sheets Farm, Smith-Healy Farms, Inc., Square Butte Farm,
Steven A. Gay, Sunnycrest Inc., Trails End Far, Inc., TruLine
Genetics, Two Mile Pork, Valley View Farm, Van Dell Farms, Inc.,
Vollmer Farms, Walters Farms LLP, Watertown Weaners, Inc., Wen Mar
Farms, Inc., William Walter Farm, Willow Ridge Farm LLC, Wolf Farms,
Wondraful Pork Systems, Inc., Wooden Purebred Swine Farms, Woodlawn
Farms, and Zimmerman Hog Farms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is all live swine
(``swine'' or ``subject merchandise'') from Canada except breeding
stock swine. Live swine are defined as four-legged, monogastric
(single-chambered stomach), litter-bearing (litters typically range
from 8 to 12 animals), of the species sus scrofa domesticus. This
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheadings 0103.91.00 and 0103.92.00.
Specifically excluded from this scope are breeding stock, including
U.S. Department of Agriculture (``USDA'') certified purebred breeding
stock and all other breeding stock. The designation of the product as
``breeding stock'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use
as breeding live swine. This designation is presumed to indicate that
these products are being used for breeding stock only. However, should
the petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis
to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of
such products for other than this application, end-use certification
for the importation of such products may be required.
Although the HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under
investigation is dispositive.
Scope Comments
In the Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Live
Swine from Canada, 69 FR 19815 (April 14, 2004) (``Initiation
Notice''), we invited comments on the scope of this proceeding. On May
4, 2004, we received a request from the GOC to amend the scope of this
investigation and the companion countervailing duty (``CVD'')
investigation. Specifically, the GOC requested that the scope be
amended to exclude hybrid breeding stock. According to the GOC,
domestic producers use hybrid breeding stock instead of purebred stock
to strengthen their strains of swine. The GOC stated that no evidence
was provided of injury, or threat of injury, to the domestic live swine
industry from the importation of hybrid breeding stock. Furthermore,
the GOC noted that the petition excluded USDA certified purebred
breeding swine from the scope of the above-mentioned investigations.
The GOC argued that the documentation which accompanies imported hybrid
breeding swine makes it easy to distinguish hybrid breeding swine from
other live swine.
On August 4, 2004, the petitioners submitted a response to the
GOC's scope exclusion request and proposed modified scope language. The
petitioners stated they did not oppose the GOC's request to exclude
hybrid breeding stock, but were concerned about the potential for
circumvention of any CVD or antidumping duty (``AD'') order on live
swine from Canada through non-breeding swine entering the domestic
market as breeding stock. Thus, the petitioners proposed modified scope
language that would require end-use certification if the petitioners or
other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or
suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for
other than this application. Moreover, on July 30, 2004, the
petitioners submitted a request to the International Trade Commission
(``ITC'') to modify the HTSUS by adding a statistical breakout that
would separately report imports of breeding animals other than purebred
breeding animals, allowing the domestic industry to monitor the import
trends of hybrid breeding stock.
On August 9, 2004, both the GOC and the respondent companies
submitted comments to respond to the petitioners' proposed revised
scope. Both the GOC and the respondent companies stated that they
generally agreed with the petitioners' modified scope language, with
the two following exceptions: (1) They contended that the petitioners'
language setting forth the mechanics of any end use certification
procedure was premature and unnecessary, and (2) they argued that the
petitioners' language stating that ``all products meeting the physical
description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded
are included in this scope'' was unnecessary because the physical
description of the merchandise in scope remains determinative.
On August 12, 2004, the petitioners submitted a response to the
August 9,
[[Page 12183]]
2004 comments from the GOC and the respondents. The petitioners
reiterated their support for their proposed modification to the scope
language. They argued that (1) their proposed language had been used
before by the Department in other proceedings; (2) since U.S. importers
bear the burden of paying the duties, the importers should be required
to certify to the end use of the product; and (3) with the petitioners'
concerns about circumvention, the ``physical description'' language
provided an important clarification that all live swine except for the
excluded products are included in the scope.
As further discussed in the August 16, 2004 memorandum entitled
``Scope Exclusion Request: Hybrid Breeding Stock'' (on file in the
Department's Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Department
building (``CRU'')), we preliminarily revised the scope in both the AD
and companion CVD proceedings based on the above scope comments. See
Preliminary Determination, 69 FR 61639, 61640-61641, and Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination: Live Swine from Canada, 69 FR
51800, 51801-51802 (August 23, 2004). No further scope comments were
received from any party subsequent to these preliminary determination.
Thus, we have adopted the revised scope from the Preliminary
Determination for this final determination. The revised scope language
is included in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, above.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 2003, through
December 31, 2003. This period corresponds to the four most recent
fiscal quarters prior to the filing of the petition on March 5, 2004.
Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department shall
apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, a respondent (A)
withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
Section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified.
Section 782(e) of the Act further provides that the Department
shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an
interested party and that is necessary to the determination but does
not meet all the applicable requirements established by the Department
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 Department with respect
to the information; and (5) the information can be used without undue
difficulties.
Premium Pork responded to the Department's questionnaires and
otherwise participated in this investigation until November 29, 2004,
two weeks before Premium Pork's scheduled verification. On November 29,
2004, Premium Pork withdrew from this investigation because of its
impending dissolution. See Premium Pork's November 29, 2004 withdrawal
letter. Premium Pork's receivers stated that its companies would ``not
continue their current integrated operations'' after its asset sales
were completed. Id. The Department has not received any further
communication from Premium Pork.
In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the 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). 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.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
In this case, Premium Pork ultimately failed to cooperate to the
best of its ability because it failed to participate in verification.
Therefore, the Department finds 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: Certain
Frozen and Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23,
2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 22
(the Department applied total adverse facts available where the
respondent withdrew from the investigation prior to verification) and
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 where the respondent failed to respond to the
antidumping questionnaires).
As adverse facts available, we have assigned Premium Pork a margin
of 18.87 percent, the highest price-to-price margin alleged in the
petition, in accordance with section 776(b)(1). Section 776(b) of the
Act notes that an adverse facts available rate may include reliance on
information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) a final determination
in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any other
information placed on the record. Thus, the statute does not limit the
specific sources from which the Department may obtain information for
use as facts available. The SAA recognizes the importance of adverse
facts available as an investigative tool in antidumping proceedings.
The Department's potential use of adverse facts available provides the
only incentive to foreign exporters and producers to respond to the
Department's questionnaires. See SAA at 868.
Section 776(c) of the Act mandates that the Department, to the
extent practicable, shall corroborate secondary information (such as
petition data) using independent sources reasonably at its disposal. In
accordance with the law, the Department, to the extent practicable,
will examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.
To corroborate the margin assigned to Premium Pork, we compared the
normal values and U.S. prices submitted by the petitioners, as amended
by the Department in the April 7, 2004, Initiation Checklist, to data
submitted by the respondents for whom we are calculating a margin. See
March 4, 2004, memorandum, ``Final Determination of Live Swine from
Canada: Corroboration Memorandum.'' This comparison corroborates and
supports the reliability of the selected margin.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin
inappropriate. 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, e.g.,
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22,
[[Page 12184]]
1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse
facts available because the margin was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin)). Therefore, we also examined whether any information on the
record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available
for Premium Pork. No such information exists. In particular, there is
no information that might lead to a conclusion that a different rate
would be more appropriate.
Accordingly, we have assigned Premium Pork the rate of 18.87
percent as total adverse facts available. This is consistent with
section 776(b) of the Act which states that adverse inferences may
include reliance on information derived from the petition.
Fair Value Comparisons
We calculated constructed export price, export price, and normal
value based on the same methodologies used in the Preliminary
Determination and in our November 3, 2004, calculations \2\ for Excel,
with the following exceptions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Memorandum to File, ``Export Price Calculation
Memorandum for Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony Hutterian
Brethren Trust, Rainbow Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, and Big
Boulder Creek Farms, Ltd.,'' dated November 3, 2004, and Memorandum
to File, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Memorandum--Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony Hutterian
Brethren Trust, Rainbow Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, and Big
Boulder Creek Farms, Ltd.,'' dated November 3, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Pork
We used the sales databases submitted by Ontario Pork after
verification, which include the minor corrections presented at
verification. We revised Ontario Pork's advertising expenses. See
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. We did not include the U.S. direct
selling expense that we included in the Preliminary Determination. See
Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. We revised Ontario Pork's reported
crossing fees based on information contained in Ontario Pork's
verification exhibits. See Memorandum to File, ``Ontario Pork
Producers' Marketing Board Final Determination Calculation
Memorandum,'' dated March 4, 2005.
Excel
We used the U.S. database submitted by Excel after verification in
our margin calculations, which includes the minor corrections presented
at verification. In addition, we disregarded sales of substandard
merchandise. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 51. See Memorandum to
File, ``Excel Swine Service, Inc. Final Determination Calculation
Memorandum,'' dated March 4, 2005.
Hytek
We used the databases submitted by Hytek after verification, which
include the minor corrections presented at verification. For Hytek's
U.S. sales, we accounted for an additional billing adjustment and
direct selling expense which were presented as minor corrections at
verification. In our product comparisons, we prevented matches between
U.S. sales of isoweans and home market sales of spent boars. See
Memorandum to File, ``Hytek, Ltd. Final Determination Calculation
Memorandum,'' dated March 4, 2005.
Cost of Production and Constructed Value
We calculated the cost of production (``COP'') and constructed
value (``CV'') for Ontario Pork, Hytek, and Excel based on the same
methodologies used in the Preliminary Determination, and in our
November 3, 2004, calculations \3\ for Excel, except for those changes
noted in the Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, ``Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Adjustments for the Final Determination--Ontario Pork
Producers' Marketing Board Cost Respondents,'' dated March 4, 2005;
Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, ``Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Determination--Excel Swine
Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony of Hutterian Bretheren Trust, Rainbow
Colony of Hutterian Bretheren Trust, and Big Boulder Creek Farms
Ltd.,'' dated March 4, 2005; and Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, ``Cost
of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Final
Determination--Hytek Ltd.,'' dated March 4, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum to File, ``Export Price Calculation
Memorandum for Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony Hutterian
Brethren Trust, Rainbow Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, and Big
Boulder Creek Farms, Ltd.,'' dated November 3, 2004, and Memorandum
to File, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Memorandum--Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony Hutterian
Brethren Trust, Rainbow Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, and Big
Boulder Creek Farms, Ltd.,'' dated November 3, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Market Sales Disregarded
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were
at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales
of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-
cost sales were not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20
percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at
prices less than the COP, we determine that the below-cost sales
represent ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time,
in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we
also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
With respect to Ontario Pork and Hytek, for certain products, more
than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were at prices less than
the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended
period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were
made at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a
reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used
the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Verifications
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by the respondents during November and December,
2004, and January, 2005. We used standard verification procedures,
including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as
well as original source documents provided by the respondents.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the petitioners' and the respondents' case and
rebuttal briefs are addressed in the March 4, 2005, Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Live Swine from Canada (``Decision Memorandum'') which
is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an
appendix is a list of the issues that the petitioners and the
respondents have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision
Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised
in these investigations and the corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's CRU. In
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.htm. The
paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
[[Page 12185]]
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are
directing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue
to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from
Canada, except merchandise produced and exported by Hytek, that are
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
October 20, 2004, the date of publication of the Preliminary
Determination in the Federal Register. The CBP shall continue to
require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-
average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the
chart below. For Hytek, because its estimated weighted-average final
dumping margin is de minimis, we are directing CBP to terminate
suspension of liquidation of Hytek's entries and refund all bonds and
cash deposits posted on subject merchandise produced by Hytek. These
suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until
further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board... 12.68 percent.
Hytek, Inc................................ 0.53 percent (de minimis).
Premium Pork Canada, Inc.................. 18.87 percent (AFA).
Excel Swine Services, Inc................. 4.64 percent.
All Others................................ 10.63 percent.\4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We excluded the de minimis margin and the margin based on adverse
facts available from the calculation of the all-others rate. See
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our determination. As our
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days,
determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that
material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, the
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or
destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective
order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and
the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 4, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
General Issues
Comment 1: Perishable Agricultural Products
Comment 2: Net Income Stabilization Account
Comment 3: Allocation of Total Production Costs
Company Specific Issues
Premium Pork
Comment 4: Premium Pork Withdrawal
Ontario Pork
Comment 5: Monthly Price-Averaging
Comment 6: Advertising Expenses
Comment 7: Bank Charges
Comment 8: Credit Expenses
Comment 9: Freight Expenses
Ontario Pork Farm A
Comment 10: Cost of Feed
Comment 11: Imputed Labor Costs
Comment 12: Cost of Breeding Stock
Comment 13: Denominator Used for the General and Administrative
Expense Ratio
Comment 14: Breeding Stock Salvage Value
Comment 15: Sows Supplied by Affiliates
Comment 16: Hogs Used for Personal Consumption
Comment 17: Per-unit Finishing Costs Adjusted by the Feeders Sold
Comment 18: Farm A's Change in Inventory Values
Comment 19: Livestock Purchases in the Indirect Cost Allocation
Comment 20: Lease of Crop Land
Comment 21: Optional Inventory Adjustment
Comment 22: Additional Accrued Cost Items
Comment 23: G&A Expenses
Comment 24: Interest Rates
Ontario Pork Farm B
Comment 25: Affiliated Feed Company
Comment 26: Tile Drainage
Comment 27: Interest Income Earned on NISA and Risk Management
Funding
Comment 28: Prepaid Feed Costs
Comment 29: Donated Hogs
Comment 30: Misallocated Costs
Comment 31: Reconciliation Error
Comment 32: Imputed Labor
Comment 33: Interest Expense for Loan
Comment 34: Interest Income
Ontario Pork Farm C
Comment 35: Claimed Offsets for Subsidies
Comment 36: Failure to Report all Feed Costs
Comment 37: Capitalized Feed Costs
Comment 38: Errors Revealed During Verification Should be Corrected
Comment 39: Proper Treatment of ``Credit to Barn Quality'' Account
Comment 40: G&A Expenses
Comment 41: Collapsing the Operations of Affiliated Suppliers
Ontario Pork Farm D
Comment 42: Costs Related to Transporting Hogs to the Farm
Comment 43: Vaccination Costs of Resold Isoweans
Comment 44: Cost of Feed Produced by the Partners
Comment 45: Price of Corn Set by the Partners for November and
December 2003
Comment 46: Depreciation Cost
Comment 47: G&A Offset for Land Rental Income
Comment 48: Labor Allocation
Comment 49: G&A Expenses Related to Fines
Excel
Comment 50: Mandatory Respondent Status
Comment 51: Sales Exclusions
Comment 52: Fertilizer as a Credit to the Cost of Producing Live
Swine
Excel Rainbow Colony
Comment 53: Production Quantity
Comment 54: Insurance Premiums
Comment 55: Accrued Labor Costs
Comment 56: Productive Assets Quantity
Comment 57: Disputed Fertilizer Purchases
Comment 58: Startup Adjustment
Excel Riverbend Colony
Comment 59: Foreign Exchange Expense
Comment 60: GST Audit Adjustment
Comment 61: Labor
Excel Big Boulder
Comment 62: Rental Income G&A Offset
Comment 63: Fiscal Year G&A and Financial Expense Ratios
Comment 64: Insurance and Donations
Hytek
Comment 65: CEP Profit
Comment 66: Further Manufacturing Costs
Comment 67: Certain Payments to Owners
Comment 68: Interest Income
[FR Doc. E5-1029 Filed 3-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P