Notices. Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value

14,439 words·~66 min read·/register/2004/09/02/04-20055·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 8230-01-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-848] Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Rescission of New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to timely and properly filed requests from Qingdao Xiyuan Refrigerate Food Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Xiyuan), Yancheng Fuda Foods Co., Ltd.

(Yancheng Fuda), and Siyang Foreign Trade Corporation (Siyang), the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC). We preliminarily determine that Qingdao Xiyuan has made sales in the United States at prices below normal value (NV). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. In addition, the Department is rescinding the new shipper reviews for Yancheng Fuda and Siyang.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 2, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or Matthew Renkey, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1386 or

(202)482-2312, respectively. Background The Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC on September 15, 1997. *See Notice of Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China,* 62 FR 48218. As noted above, the Department received timely requests for a new shipper review under the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and § 351.214(c) of the Department's regulations, from Qingdao Xiyuan, Yancheng Fuda, and Siyang. In their requests, Yancheng Fuda and Qingdao Xiyuan stated that they produced the crawfish tail meat exported for their new shipper sales. In its request, Siyang stated that it purchased the crawfish tail meat it exported from an unaffiliated producer. On October 31, 2003, the Department initiated these new shipper reviews for the period September 1, 2002, through August 31, 2003, for Qingdao Xiyuan and Yancheng Fuda, and for the period July 1, 2002 through August 31, 2003, for Siyang. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews,* 68 FR 62774 (November 6, 2003). On November 25, 2003, the Domestic Interested Parties requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the period of review (POR), in accordance with section 751(a)(4) of the Act. We find that section 751(a)(4) of the Act is not applicable to these reviews, and accordingly, we did not determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR. *See Memorandum to File From Matthew Renkey Through Maureen Flannery* , *Duty Absorption Request From the Domestic Interested Parties in Three New Shipper Reviews,* dated August 26, 2004. On April 27, 2004, the Department extended the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results until July 30, 2004. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 24567 (May 4, 2004). On July 29, 2004, the Department further extended the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results until August 26, 2004. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 47080 (August 4, 2004). Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The product covered by this antidumping duty order is freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with fat on, whether purged or unpurged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared. Excluded from the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole crawfish, whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater crawfish tail meat is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, which are the new HTSUS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)in 2000, and HTSUS items 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00, which are reserved for fish and crustaceans in general. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP purposes only. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Rescission of New Shipper Reviews A new shipper request from an exporter in a non-market economy

(NME)country must contain a certification that the exporter is not controlled by the central government ( *see* § 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B) of the Department's regulations) and, thus, that it is not part of the NME entity, which was subject to the original investigation, and is eligible for a separate rate. During the course of a new shipper review, the exporter must affirmatively demonstrate that it meets the Department's criteria for receiving a separate rate. As discussed in detail below, we have found that neither Yancheng Fuda nor Siyang demonstrated that it meets the criteria for a separate rate, and as such, we are rescinding these new shipper reviews. Yancheng Fuda On November 19, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Yancheng Fuda. The Department's questionnaire contained instructions for preparing and filing Yancheng Fuda's response. Yancheng Fuda's initial questionnaire response was due on January 5, 2004. On January 6, 2004, Yancheng Fuda's counsel, who filed the request for review on Yancheng Fuda's behalf, informed the Department that it was withdrawing its representation of Yancheng Fuda. On March 3, 2004, the Department sent a letter to Yancheng Fuda noting that it had received neither a response to the questionnaire nor any correspondence from Yancheng Fuda, and requesting that Yancheng Fuda contact the Department immediately if it intended to participate in the new shipper review. On March 16, 2004, Yancheng Fuda contacted the Department and requested an extension to file its questionnaire response. On March 17, 2004, the Department granted Yancheng Fuda an extension until March 29, 2004, to properly file its questionnaire response. On March 26, 2004, Yancheng Fuda faxed a questionnaire response directly to the Department, without serving parties, without filing the requisite number of copies with the Central Records Unit (CRU), and without an indication as to whether its response contained business proprietary information. The response appeared to be a draft response, as Yancheng Fuda asked that the Department “check it,” and further indicated that it would later “mail the original finished questionnaire” to the Department. On the same day, the Department faxed to Yancheng Fuda a letter explaining that the Department does not accept draft questionnaire responses, and reminding Yancheng Fuda that its questionnaire response must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations, which were provided to Yancheng Fuda on March 17, 2004, via Federal Express and March 18, 2004, via fax. The Department provided the regulations and instructions again on March 26, 2004, via fax. In this letter, the Department granted Yancheng Fuda an additional extension until March 30, 2004, to properly file its questionnaire response. On March 30, 2004, the Department received, via Federal Express, the same draft questionnaire response received on March 26, 2004. As this questionnaire response was not filed in accordance with the Department's filing requirements, copies of this document were not placed on the record for this review. *See Memorandum to File From Scot Fullerton Through Maureen Flannery to File, Yancheng Fuda Foods Co., Ltd. Improperly Filed Letters and Questionnaire Response,* dated April 19, 2004. On April 28, 2004, the Department received a questionnaire response filed by a law firm on behalf of Yancheng Fuda. Given the extensive amount of time which had lapsed since the initial due date for the response, and the subsequent extensions given to Yancheng Fuda, the Department found that the questionnaire response submitted on April 28, 2004, was not timely filed. As mentioned above, in order to be eligible for a new shipper review, a company is required to certify in its request that it is not controlled by the central government. *See* § 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B) of the Department's regulations. While Yancheng Fuda did provide such a certification that served as the basis for initiation, it did not provide a timely questionnaire response. Absent a questionnaire response, the Department is unable to determine whether Yancheng Fuda meets the requirements for receiving a separate rate. Because the Department is unable to confirm that Yancheng Fuda is eligible for a separate rate, it must continue to consider Yancheng Fuda to be part of the NME entity. Consistent with the Department's practice, we have therefore determined that Yancheng Fuda does not qualify as a new shipper under § 351.214(a) of the Department's regulations because it is part of an entity that shipped during the original period of investigation. *See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 64 FR 61581 (November 12, 1999) ( *Brake Rotors* ). On August 12, 2004, we issued a memorandum stating our intent to rescind the new shipper review for Yancheng Fuda because it had not demonstrated its eligiblity for a separate rate. *See Memorandum From Barbara E. Tillman to Jeffrey A. May: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From The People's Republic of China: Intent To Rescind the New Shipper Review of Yancheng Fuda Foods Co., Ltd.,* dated August 12, 2004. We allowed interested parties an opportunity to comment, but received no comments. Accordingly, we are rescinding the new shipper review of Yancheng Fuda. Siyang On November 19, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Siyang. Siyang's initial questionnaire response was due on January 5, 2004. On January 5, 2004, the Department granted Siyang an extension to file its questionnaire response, and on January 21, 2004, Siyang submitted a response to sections A, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire. On May 7, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Siyang; Siyang filed its response to the supplemental questionnaire on May 24, 2004. On June 2, 2004, Siyang submitted a letter to the Department stating that Siyang and its supplier would not participate in verification for this new shipper review. As mentioned above, in order to be eligible for a new shipper review, a company is required to certify in its request that it is not controlled by the central government. *See* § 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B) of the Department's regulations. While Siyang did provide such a certification that served as the basis for initiation, it did not permit verification of its questionnaire responses. Absent the ability to conduct verification, the Department is unable to determine whether Siyang meets the requirements for receiving a separate rate. Therefore, because the Department is unable to confirm that Siyang is eligible for a separate rate, it must continue to consider Siyang part of the NME entity. Consistent with the Department's practice, we have therefore determined that Siyang does not qualify as a new shipper under § 351.214(a) of the Department's regulations because it is part of an entity that shipped during the original period of investigation. *See, e.g., Brake Rotors.* On August 12, 2004, we issued a memorandum stating our intent to rescind the new shipper review for Siyang because it had not demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate. *See Memorandum From Barbara E. Tillman to Jeffrey A. May: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From The People's Republic of China: Intent To Rescind the New Shipper Review of Siyang Foreign Trade Corporation,* dated August 12, 2004. We allowed interested parties an opportunity to comment, but received no comments. Accordingly, we are rescinding the new shipper review of Siyang. Analysis for Qingdao Xiyuan Separate Rates Qingdao Xiyuan requested a separate, company-specific rate and properly certified in its request for a new shipper review that it was not controlled by the central government. *See* § 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B) of the Department's regulations. Qingdao Xiyuan provided separate rate information in its questionnaire response. Accordingly, we performed a separate-rate analysis to determine whether Qingdao Xiyuan is independent from government control. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China,* 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996). The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping investigations and in prior segments of this proceeding. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China,* 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000), and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate From the People's Republic of China,* 65 FR 19873 (April 13, 2000). A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. *See* section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single 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 exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be eligible for a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( *Sparklers* ), as amplified by the *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* ). Under this policy, exporters in NMEs are eligible for separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control, in law and in fact, with respect to export activities. Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of *de jure* absence of government control over export activities includes:

(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and

(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *De facto* absence of government control over exports is based on four factors:

(1)Whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority;

(2)whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;

(3)whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and

(4)whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. With respect to the absence of *de jure* government control over the export activities of the company reviewed, evidence on the record supports the claim made by Qingdao Xiyuan that its export activities are not controlled by the government. Qingdao Xiyuan submitted evidence of its legal right to set prices independently of all government oversight. The business license of Qingdao Xiyuan indicates that the company is permitted to engage in the exportation of crawfish. We found no evidence of *de jure* government control restricting this company's exportation of crawfish. There are no export quotas that apply to crawfish. Prior verifications have confirmed that there are no commodity-specific export licenses required and no quotas for the seafood category “Other,” which includes crawfish, in *China's Tariff and Non-Tariff Handbook* for 1996. In addition, we have previously confirmed that crawfish is not on the list of commodities with planned quotas in the 1992 PRC Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation document entitled *Temporary Provisions for Administration of Export Commodities. See e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From The People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review,* 64 FR 8543 (February 22, 1999) and *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of New Shipper Review,* 64 FR 27961 (May 24, 1999). Qingdao Xiyuan submitted, for the record of this review, the *Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China (Foreign Trade Law),* adopted by the Seventh Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress (effective on July 1, 1994). The *Foreign Trade Law* indicates a lack of *de jure* government control over privately-owned companies, such as Qingdao Xiyuan. The *Foreign Trade Law* regulations state that “foreign trade operators shall in accordance with law enjoy full autonomy in their management and shall be responsible for their own profits and losses.” *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China,* 60 FR 56045 (November 6, 1995). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of *de jure* control over export activity with respect to Qingdao Xiyuan. With respect to the absence of *de facto* control over export activities, the information submitted on the record indicates that the management of Qingdao Xiyuan is responsible for the determination of export prices, profit distribution, marketing strategy, and contract negotiations. Our analysis indicates that there is no government involvement in the daily operations or the selection of management for this company. In addition, we have found that Qingdao Xiyuan's pricing and export strategy decisions are not subject to the review or approval of any outside entity, and that there are no governmental policy directives that affect these decisions. There are no restrictions on the use of export earnings. The general manager of Qingdao Xiyuan has the right to negotiate and enter into contracts, and may delegate this authority to employees within the company. There is no evidence that this authority is subject to any level of governmental approval. Qingdao Xiyuan reported that its management is selected by a board of directors and there is no government involvement in the selection process. Finally, decisions made by the respondent concerning purchases of subject merchandise from suppliers are not subject to government approval. Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over the company's export activities, we preliminarily determine that a separate rate should be applied to Qingdao Xiyuan. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether Qingdao Xiyuan's sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at a price below NV, we compared its United States price to NV, as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. United States Price Based on the information we have gathered to date, we preliminarily find Qingdao Xiyuan's sales to be *bona fide.* However, we will continue to analyze this issue for purposes of the final results of review. For a discussion of our analysis, which is primarily based on business proprietary information, *See* Memorandum to the File through Maureen Flannery from Scot Fullerton entitled *Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the New Shipper Review of Qingdao Xiyuan Refrigerate Food Co., Ltd.,* dated August 26, 2004. A public version of this Memorandum is on file in the CRU. We based the 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 purchaser in the United States. We deducted foreign inland freight and international freight from the starting price (gross unit price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Qingdao Xiyuan reported the actual international freight expense it incurred since it used a market economy carrier and paid in U.S. dollars. Qingdao Xiyuan also reported that this international freight charge included brokerage and handling, so we have not made a separate deduction for brokerage and handling. Normal Value 1. Surrogate Country When reviewing imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall use, to the extent practicable, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Factor Valuations” section below. We calculated NV based on factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act and § 351.408(c) of our regulations. Consistent with the original investigation and the subsequent administrative reviews of this order, we determined that India

(1)is comparable to the PRC in level of economic development, and

(2)is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, processed seafood. *See* Memorandum to the File from Matthew Renkey through Maureen Flannery: *Surrogate Values Used for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China,* dated August 26, 2004 ( *Surrogate Values Memo* ). This Memorandum is on file in the CRU. 2. Factors of Production Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if

(1)the merchandise is exported from an NME country, and

(2)available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Factors of production include the following elements:

(1)Hours of labor required,

(2)quantities of raw materials employed,

(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and

(4)representative capital costs. We used the reported factors of production for materials, energy, labor, and packing. We valued all the input factors using publicly available information, as discussed in the “Surrogate Country” section of this notice. With the exceptions of the whole live crawfish input and the crawfish shell scrap by-product, we valued the factors of production using publicly available information from India. We adjusted the Indian import prices by adding foreign inland freight expenses to make them delivered prices. Where applicable, we excluded any imports from NMEs and “unspecified” countries from the import data. We also excluded imports from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand because these countries maintain non-specific export subsidies. For reasons which are discussed below in more detail, the live crawfish input was valued using Spanish import data, and the crawfish shell scrap was valued using an Indonesian price quote. *See Surrogate Values Memo.* In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production no later than 20 days following the date of publication of these preliminary results. 3. Factor Valuations We applied surrogate values to the factors of production to determine NV. We valued the factors of production as follows: Materials *Whole, Live Crawfish.* To value the input of whole live crawfish, we used publicly available data on Spanish imports of whole live crawfish from Portugal. We used Spanish import data because:

(1)There is no crawfish industry in India or in any of the other countries identified in the list of countries at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC ( *See Antidumping Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,* dated April 30, 2004, on file in the CRU ( *Surrogate Countries Memo* ); and

(2)Spain has a crawfish industry and publicly available import statistics. *See e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China,* 68 FR 7976 (February 19, 2003) and *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China,* 68 FR 43085 (July 21, 2003). We adjusted the values of whole live crawfish to include freight costs incurred between the supplier and the factory. For transportation distances used in the calculation of freight expenses for whole live crawfish, we added a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of

(a)the distances between the closest PRC port and the factory, or

(b)the distance between the domestic supplier and the factory. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails From the People's Republic of China,* 62 FR 51410 (October 1, 1997) ( *Roofing Nails* ). *Crawfish Shell Scrap.* To value the by-product of crawfish shell scrap, we used a price quote from Indonesia for wet crab and shrimp shells, because

(1)there is no Indian data suitable for valuing the crawfish scrap factor and

(2)Indonesia is among the countries identified as an appropriate surrogate. *See* Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, through Maureen Flannery, Program Manager, from Christian Hughes and Adina Teodorescu, Case Analysts: *Surrogate Valuation of Shell Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China (PRC), Administrative Review 9/1/00-8/31/01 and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00-8/31/01 and 9/1/00-10/15/01* (August 5, 2002) and Memorandum to File from Barbara E. Tillman entitled *Summary of Telephone Discussion with Official of Indo Chitosan International* (July 15, 2002). These documents are included in Attachment 5 to the *Surrogate Values Memo.* *See also Surrogate Countries Memo.* To achieve comparability of the scrap price to the factor reported for the POR, we adjusted this factor value to reflect inflation during the POR using the Wholesale Price Index

(WPI)for Indonesia, as published in the *International Financial Statistics (IFS)* by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Energy *Coal and Electricity.* To value coal, we relied upon Indian import data for steam coal from the internet version of the *World Trade Atlas.* For transportation distances used in the calculation of freight expenses for coal, we used the the shorter of

(a)the distances between the closest PRC port and the factory, or

(b)the distance between the domestic supplier and the factory. *See Roofing Nails.* To value electricity, we used the average of the total cost per kilowatt hour

(KWH)for “Electricity for Industry” as reported in the International Energy Agency's publication, *Key World Energy Statistics (2003).* To achieve comparability of electricity prices to the factor reported for the POR, we adjusted this factor value to reflect inflation during the POR using the WPI for India, as published in the IFS. *Water.* For water, we relied upon public information from the October 1997 *Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific Region,* published by the Asian Development Bank. To achieve comparability of water prices to the factor reported for the POR, we adjusted this factor value to reflect inflation during the POR using the WPI for India, as published in the *IFS.* *Packing Materials.* To value packing materials (plastic bags, cardboard boxes and adhesive tape), we relied upon the most recent Indian import data for the POR as reported in the *World Trade Atlas.* We adjusted the values of packing materials to include freight costs incurred between the supplier and the factory. For transportation distances used in the calculation of freight expenses for packing materials, we used the shorter of

(a)the distances between the closest PRC port and the factory, or

(b)the distance between the domestic supplier and the factory. *See Roofing Nails.* Labor For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate found on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2003 (updated in February 2004). *See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/01wages/01wages.html.* Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar per capita gross domestic products, section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. The source of these wage rate data on the Import Administration's Web site is the *Year Book of Labour Statistics 2002,* International Labour Organization (ILO), (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Factory Overhead, SG&A, and Profit To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit, we used the publicly available 2002-2003 financial statement of Nekkanti Seafoods Ltd., an Indian seafood processor. We applied these rates to the calculated cost of manufacture. *See Surrogate Values Memo* at 5. Transportation Expenses We valued movement expenses as follows: to value domestic ground transport, we used freight prices published in the April 26, 2002, edition of the *Iron & Steel Newsletter,* which cites *http://www.INFreight.com,* an Indian logistics Web site that tracks freight rates for all of India. *Iron & Steel Newsletter* republished freight prices for shipments originating from three cities: Mumbai (Bombay), Delhi and Kolkata (Calcutta). We adjusted the rates to reflect inflation through the POR using the WPI for India from the *IFS.* Currency Conversion We made currency conversions pursuant to § 351.415 of the Department's regulations at the rates found at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.* Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists: Exporter/manufacturer Time period Margin Qingdao Xiyuan Refrigerate Food Co., Ltd 9/1/02-8/31/03 59.98% Cash Deposit Requirements Upon completion of the review for Qingdao Xiyuan, bonding will no longer be permitted and cash deposits will be required. If the final results of the review remain the same as the preliminary results, the cash deposit rate for shipments produced and exported by Qingdao Xiyuan will be the total amount of antidumping duties divided by the total quantity exported during the POR. *See* Memorandum to File dated August 26, 2004, which places on the record of this review the *Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman through Maureen Flannery, From Mark Hoadley: Collection of Cash Deposits and Assessment of Duties on Freshwater Crawfish From the PRC,* dated August 27, 2001. This cash deposit rate will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC produced and exported by Qingdao Xiyuan and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. This per kilogram cash deposit rate will be equivalent to the company-specific dumping margin established in this review. For crawfish tail meat exported, but not produced by Qingdao Xiyuan, we will continue to apply the PRC-wide rate, which is currently 223.01 percent, as the cash deposit rate. Since we are rescinding the new shipper reviews of Yancheng Fuda and Siyang, upon publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , we will instruct CBP that bonding is no longer permitted and that a cash deposit of 223.01 percent must be collected for all entries exported by Yancheng Fuda and Siyang. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries for Qingdao Xiyuan. For assessment purposes for Qingdao Xiyuan, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. We divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between NV and EP) for the importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR. Upon completion of this review, we will direct CBP to assess antidumping duties on a per kilogram basis equivalent to the company-specific dumping margin established in this review for each entry of subject merchandise made by the importer during the POR that was produced and exported by Qingdao Xiyuan during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. Since we have rescinded the new shipper reviews of Yancheng Fuda and Siyang, we will issue assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice to liquidate the entries from these two companies during the POR at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry. Verification We plan to conduct verification of Qingdao Xiyuan's questionnaire responses, as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, subsequent to the issuance of these preliminary results. We will use standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of Qingdao Xiyuan's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results will be summarized in a written report, a public version of which will be on file in the CRU located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building. Schedule for Final Results of Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results of the review of Qingdao Xiyuan within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with §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 in accordance with 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 included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm, by telephone, the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. Unless the time limit is extended, the Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review no later than 90 days after the signature date of the preliminary results. The final results will include the analysis of issues raised in the briefs. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under §351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during 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. With respect to Yancheng Fuda and Siyang, 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 §351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 26, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2043 Filed 9-01-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-812] Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 2, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Rivas (Guven) at

(202)482-0651; Drew Jackson

(MMZ)at

(202)482-4406; and Mark Manning (Ozborsan/Onur and Ozdemir) at

(202)482-5253; Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office IV, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Final Determination The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined that light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) from Turkey is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the *Final Determination of Investigation* section of this notice. Case History On April 13, 2004, the Department published the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty investigation of LWRPT from Turkey. *See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination* , 69 FR 19390 (April 13, 2004) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). Since the preliminary determination, the following events have occurred. The Department received a timely supplemental section D questionnaire response from MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim Sanayi Ve. Ticaret A.S.

(MMZ)on April 15, 2004. On April 15 and April 19, 2004, the Department returned untimely filed supplemental section D questionnaire responses to Guven Boru Ve. Profil San. Ve. Ticaret Ltd. Sti. (Guven). We conducted a verification of the sales and cost questionnaire responses of MMZ from April 19, 2004, through April 30, 2004. MMZ timely filed its supplemental section C questionnaire response on May 7, 2004. On June 22, 2004, the Department returned an untimely filed, and improperly served, supplemental section A questionnaire response to Ozdemir Boru Profil Sanayi Ve. Ticaret Ltd. Sti. (Ozdemir). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our *Preliminary Determination* and our findings at verification. On July 7, 2004, the petitioners, 1 MMZ, and Ozborsan Boru Sanayi Ve. Ticaret and its affiliated sister company Onur Metal (collectively, Ozborsan/Onur) submitted case briefs. On July 12, 2004, these parties submitted rebuttal briefs. The Department did not receive a request for a public hearing; consequently, no public hearing was held. 1 The petitioners in this investigation are California Steel and Tube, Hannibal Industries, Inc., Leavitt Tube Company, LLC, Maruichi American Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company, Searing Industries, Inc., Vest Inc., and Western Tube and Conduit Corporation (collectively, the petitioners). Period of Investigation The period of investigation

(POI)is July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003. *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is LWRPT from Turkey, which are welded carbon-quality pipe and tube of rectangular (including square) cross-section, having a wall thickness of less than 0.156 inch. These LWRPT have rectangular cross sections ranging from 0.375 x 0.625 inches to 2 x 6 inches, or square cross sections ranging from 0.375 to 4 inches, regardless of specification. LWRPT are currently classifiable under item number 7306.60.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written product description of the scope is dispositive. The term “carbon-quality” applies to products in which

(i)iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements,

(ii)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight, and

(AFA)pursuant to sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Act. The use of AFA was warranted in this investigation because Guven, Ozborsan/Onur, and Ozdemir failed to timely provide complete and useable responses to the Department's antidumping questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires. *See Preliminary Determination* , 69 FR at 19393-96. The failure to provide the requested information significantly impeded this proceeding because the Department cannot determine a margin without complete and accurate responses to our questionnaires. As AFA, we assigned Guven, Ozborsan/Onur, and Ozdemir the rate of 34.89 percent, the highest margin listed in the notice of initiation. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico and Turkey* , 68 FR 57667 (October 6, 2003). A complete explanation of the selection, corroboration, and application of AFA can be found in the *Preliminary Determination* . *See Preliminary Determination* , 69 FR at 19393-96. The Department received comments and rebuttal from Ozborsan/Onur and the petitioner regarding this issue. *See Decision Memorandum* at Comment 11. Nothing has changed since the *Preliminary Determination* was issued that would affect the Department's selection and application of facts available. Accordingly, for the final determination, we continue apply as AFA the rate of 34.89 percent to Guven, Ozborsan/Onur, and Ozdemir. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by MMZ for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our findings at verification, and analysis of comments received, we have made certain adjustments to the margin calculations used in the *Preliminary Determination* . These adjustments are discussed in detail in the *Decision Memorandum* and are listed below: 1. Duty Drawback Adjustment The Department disregarded the amount of duty drawback reported by MMZ under the yield rate for coils established by the government of Turkey

(GOT)and instead calculated the duty drawback using MMZ's own yield rate for steel coils. However, since MMZ does not separately track its consumption of zinc, the Department relied upon the yield rate established by the GOT for the duty drawback on zinc. *See* Memorandum to the File from Drew Jackson, International Trade Compliance Analyst, “Calculation Memorandum for the Final Determination,” dated August 26, 2004 (Final Sales Calculation Memorandum). 2. Reclassification of Certain Selling Expenses Based on comments made by petitioners, we have reclassified the bank commissions and letter of credit fees as direct selling expenses, rather than indirect selling expenses, for the final determination. *See* Final Sales Calculation Memorandum. 3. Revised Production Quantity for Non-Prime Products Pursuant to a minor error reported on the first day of verification, we have revised the production quantity for non-prime products. *See* Final Sales Calculation Memorandum. 4. Adjustment to MMZ's Raw Material Costs Based on comments made by MMZ, we have made an adjustment to MMZ's raw material costs to account for an overstatement in these raw material costs discovered during verification. *See* Memorandum from Margaret M. Pusey, Case Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Determination—MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.,” dated August 26, 2004 (Final Cost Calculation Memorandum). 5. Adjustment to MMZ's Calculated Financial Expenses Based on comments made by MMZ, we have made an adjustment to MMZ's calculated financial expense. Specifically, we have granted an adjustment to allow the income on certain investments to offset financial expenses because this income was found to be interest on short-term bank accounts. *See* Final Cost Calculation Memorandum. 6. Adjustment to MMZ's Calculated General and Administrative Expenses Based upon verification findings, we have adjusted MMZ's calculated general and administrative expenses. *See* Final Cost Calculation Memorandum. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of LWRPT from Turkey that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 13, 2004, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price, as indicated in the chart below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Final Determination of Investigation We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003: Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) Guven Boru Ve. Profil San. Ve. Ticaret Ltd. Sti/Ozborsan Boru Sanayi Ve. Ticaret and Onur Metal/Ozdemir Boru Profil Sanayi Ve. Ticaret Ltd. Sti 34.89 MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim Sanayi Ve. Ticaret A.S 6.12 All Others 6.12 International Trade Commission 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 determine, within 45 days, whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of 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 order directing CBP officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective 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(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. August 26, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—Issues in Decision Memorandum Part I—MMZ Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Deny MMZ's Duty Drawback Claim Because MMZ Did Not Use Imported Inputs to Produce Finished Merchandise Sold in the Home Market. Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Add Duty Drawback to MMZ's Cost of Production and Constructed Value. Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Classify Certain Bank Commissions and Letter of Credit Fees as Direct Selling Expenses Instead of Indirect Selling Expenses. Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Classify Sales Made Through the U.S. Commissioned Selling Agent as CEP Transactions. Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Collapse MMZ and Company A for Purposes of Calculating MMZ's Coil Cost. Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Find that the Transfer Price Between Company A and MMZ Was Above the Market Price. Comment 7: Whether the Upward Adjustment for Imported Coil Purchased Through Company A to the Price Paid to Home Market Suppliers in Effect Double-Counts the Duty-Drawback Adjustment to Cost of Production and Constructed Value. Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Exclude Foreign Exchange Losses Incurred on Payables from MMZ's Computed Financial Expense. Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Adjust MMZ's Reported Costs to Correct for the Overstatement in MMZ's Raw Material Cost Discovered During Verification. Part II—Ozborsan/Onur, Guven, and Ozdemir *Comment 10:* Whether the Department Erred in its Decision to Collapse Ozborsan/Onur, Guven, and Ozdemir Into a Single Entity. Comment 11: Whether the Department Erred in Finding that Ozborsan/Onur Metal Failed to Provide Requested Information to the Department and in its Application of Total Adverse Facts Available. [FR Doc. E4-2044 Filed 9-1-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-832] Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 2, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zolak

(LM)at

(202)482-4162; Richard Johns (Galvak/Hylsa) at

(202)482-2305, Crystal Crittenden (Regiomontana) at

(202)482-0989, and Maisha Cryor (Prolamsa) at

(202)482-5831; Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office IV, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Final Determination The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined that light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) from Mexico is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the *Final Determination of Investigation* section of this notice. Case History On April 13, 2004, the Department published the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty investigation of LWRPT from Mexico. *See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico; Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination* , 69 FR 19400 (April 13, 2004) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). Since the *Preliminary Determination* , the following events have occurred. The Department received a timely supplemental questionnaire response from Perfiles y Herrajes LM, S.A. de CV

(LM)on April 6, 2004, and Regiomontana de Perfiles Y Tubos, S.A. de C.V. (Regiomontana) on April 8, 2004. The Department received a post preliminary determination submission from Galvak, S.A. de C.V. and Hylsa, S.A. de C.V. (Galvak/Hylsa) on April 12, 2004. On April 14, 2004, Galvak/Hylsa submitted a ministerial error allegation regarding the Department's calculations in the *Preliminary Determination* . Because the alleged ministerial errors were not significant within the meaning of section 351.224(g)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department did not issue an amended preliminary determination but has instead addressed the ministerial errors in the *Changes Since the Preliminary Determination* section of this notice. *See* Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations,” dated May 12, 2004. We conducted verification of the sales and cost questionnaire responses of the respondents LM, from April 19, 2004, through April 30, 2004; Galvak/Hylsa from April 19, 2004, through April 30, 2004; Regiomontana from April 26, 2004, through May 7, 2004; and Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V. (Prolamsa) from May 3, 2004, through May 18, 2004. Regiomontana submitted revisions and data resulting from minor corrections made at verification on May 15, 2004. On July 26, 2004, the Department requested that Galvak/Hylsa submit new sales and cost databases and provided an itemized list of changes to be made to the data. Galvak/Hylsa complied with that request and submitted its post-verification databases on August 5, 2004. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our *Preliminary Determination* and our findings at verification. On July 15, 2004, the petitioners 1 , LM, Galvak/Hylsa, Regiomontana, and Prolamsa submitted case briefs. On July 23, 2004, these parties submitted rebuttal briefs. On May 13, 2004, Galvak submitted a request for a public hearing, but subsequently withdrew its request on July 21, 2004; consequently, no public hearing was held. 1 The petitioners in this investigation are California Steel and Tube, Hannibal Industries, Inc., Leavitt Tube Company, LLC, Maruichi American Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company, Searing Industries, Inc., Vest Inc., and Western Tube and Conduit Corporation (collectively, the petitioners). Period of Investigation The period of investigation

(POI)is July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003. *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is LWRPT from Mexico, which are welded carbon-quality pipe and tube of rectangular (including square) cross-section, having a wall thickness of less than 0.156 inch. These LWRPT have rectangular cross sections ranging from 0.375 x 0.625 inches to 2 x 6 inches, or square cross sections ranging from 0.375 to 4 inches, regardless of specification. LWRPT are currently classifiable under item number 7306.60.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written product description of the scope is dispositive. The term “carbon-quality” applies to products in which

(i)iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements,

(ii)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight, and

(iii)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickle, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Memorandum from Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum,” ( *Decision Memorandum* ) dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Use of Partial Adverse Facts Available With respect to Prolamsa, we have determined that the use of partial adverse facts available is warranted, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(B) and 776(b) of the Act, to calculate the dumping margin because the respondent did not provide information critical to the calculation of a dumping margin and impeded the conduct of the administrative review by providing information that could not be substantiated. These inadequacies relate to Prolamsa's sales to affiliated resellers. Prolamsa stated that it would not provide the Department with its affiliated resellers downstream sales because sales to its affiliated reseller were made at arm's-length. The Department informed Prolamsa that, pursuant to section 351.403(d) of the Department's regulations, it would allow the exclusion of these sales from Prolamsa's reported data, as long as its statements concerning the arm's-length nature of these sales could be substantiated. However, there were sales made by Prolamsa to its affiliated resellers that failed the arm's-length test. Therefore, the Department determined that partial adverse facts available should be applied to the sales that failed the arm's-length test because Prolamsa failed to provide accurate information concerning its sales to affiliated resellers. To address this inadequacy, we selected the highest gross unit price of comparable merchandise sold to another customer that passed the arm's-length test. We have considered the arguments raised by petitioners and Prolamsa regarding this issue of partial adverse facts available and have addressed them in the *Decision Memorandum* at Comment 3. Based on our analysis of the parties' comments, we have determined that partial adverse facts available is applicable in this instance. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondents for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our findings at verification and analysis of comments received, we have made certain adjustments to the margin calculations used in the *Preliminary Determination* . These adjustments are discussed in detail in the *Decision Memorandum* each respondent's respective calculation memoranda and are listed below: 1. LM: Based on the verification of LM's responses, we made a revision to the calculation of the U.S. inventory carrying costs to account for a correction relating to the number of days in inventory and correct the formula used to calculate inventory carrying costs by deducting certain discounts from the gross unit price. 2. LM: Based on verification findings, we revised the calculation of the U.S. brokerage and handling charges. 3. LM: We noted that LM inadvertently reported certain expenses as warehousing expenses incurred at the factory, although these expenses are properly categorized as indirect selling expenses. Accordingly, for purposes of the final determination, we set the reported expenses for that warehouse to zero. 4. LM: We deducted, when applicable, warehousing expenses, incurred by the remote warehouses after the merchandise left the factory, from home market prices. The adjustment for these warehousing expenses was inadvertently omitted from the Department's margin calculation in the preliminary determination. 5. LM: We recalculated indirect selling expenses to reflect a correction relating to the indirect selling expense ratio used to calculate these expenses. 6. LM: Since LM was unable during verification to sufficiently document its revisions of the reported charges for freight from its factory to certain of its warehouses, we disallowed any adjustment to home market prices for the freight charges relating to these warehouses. 7. LM: We revised the financial expense ratio calculation to correctly include the monetary correction under Mexican GAAP Bulletin B-10, thus lowering the financial expense ratio. 8. LM: We adjusted the G&A expense ratio calculation for the effect of double counting of indirect selling expenses. This adjustment had the effect of lowering G&A ratio. 9. LM: We adjusted total cost of manufacturing to include the effects of yield loss. 10. Prolamsa: We applied partial adverse facts available to certain sales from Prolamsa to affiliated resellers that failed the arm's-length test, where information concerning downstream sales was not on the record of this investigation. 11. Prolamsa: We excluded inventory carrying costs from the calculation of constructed export price indirect selling expenses. 12. Prolamsa: For certain expenses, we converted the currency by dividing, rather than multiplying. 13. Prolamsa: We increased the reported total cost of manufacturing (TOTCOM) for the unreconciled difference between Prolamsa's cost accounting system and the extended TOTCOM reported to the Department. We also increase the reported TOTCOM to include an amount for the expenses related to the importation of raw material *i.e.* , freight, insurance, and handling charges. 14. Galvak/Hylsa: We corrected the error in the margin calculation program which incorrectly converted U.S. dollar amounts into Mexican pesos using the exchange rate on the date of the home-market sale. The program incorrectly multiplied the U.S. dollar amounts by the dollar-to-peso exchange rate instead of dividing them by the exchange rate. The program then converted the calculated peso amounts back into dollars using the weighted-average exchange rate based on the date of the U.S. sales. 15. Galvak/Hylsa: We corrected the error in the margin calculation program which failed to convert home-market sales prices that were denominated in U.S. dollars into Mexican pesos when determining whether those sales were made at below-cost prices. Instead, the preliminary program incorrectly compared the U.S. dollar prices to the Mexican peso costs. 16. Galvak/Hylsa: We recalculated home market credit expenses to exclude value added taxes. 17. Galvak/Hylsa: We corrected a calculation error for the galvanizing expense variance and applied it to each of the galvanized products. 18. Galvak/Hylsa: In addition to the changes we made to the financial expense ratio at the preliminary determination, we subtracted Galvak and Hylsa's packing expenses from the cost of goods sold denominator. We revised the ratio to include an offset in the numerator of the current portion of the gain on debt restructure from the parent company's 2002 financial statements. 19. Galvak/Hylsa: In addition to the changes we made to the general and administrative expense ratio at the preliminary determination, we subtracted Galvak's packing expenses from the cost of goods sold denominator. 20. Galvak/Hylsa: We revised the reported costs for the coils that were obtained from Hylsa to reflect the major input adjustment made to Hylsa's iron ore purchases. 21. Galvak/Hylsa: We revised the financial expense ratio by including the current portion of the gain on debt restructure as an offset to the numerator and also subtracted Hylsa and Galvak's packing expenses from the denominator. 22. Galvak/Hylsa: We revised the general and administrative expense ratio by adding the income for the sale of land, the gain on restructuring bank liability, and bonus expense to and subtracting debt restructuring expenses and general and administrative expenses attributable to affiliates from the numerator as well as subtracting packing expenses from the denominator. 23. Galvak/Hylsa: We adjusted the per-unit total cost of manufacturing for certain control numbers to include costs that were mis-classified as costs related to products sold to third countries and not reported. 24. Galvak/Hylsa: We revised the reported cost of iron ore obtained from affiliated suppliers and adjusted reported direct material costs to reflect the higher of the transfer price, market price, or cost of production in accordance with the major input rule. 25. Regiomontana: We corrected the error in the comparison market calculation program which incorrectly compared theoretical quantities for home market sales with gross unit prices and adjustments based on actual quantities. 26. Regiomontana: We recalculated credit expense for sales in the U.S. and home market due to minor corrections made at verification. 27. Regiomontana: We included the cost of scrap from all production processes and included all corrections of errors found while preparing supporting documentation for the cost of scrap. 28. Regiomontana: For the interest expense, we included the monetary effect from Regiomontana's financial statements and deducted the year end adjustment for inflation from the cost of goods sold. We also added the depreciation from the revaluation of fixed assets to the cost of goods sold. 29. Regiomontana: We adjusted G&A expense to included the employee profit sharing expense and to exclude the year end adjustment for inflation from the cost of goods sold. We also added the depreciation from the revaluation of fixed assets to the cost of goods sold. 30. Regiomontana: We included the unreconcilable difference from the reconciliation of Regiomontana's cost of manufacture to the reported cost in the RECON field. 31. Regiomontana: We revised the per unit fabrication costs and per unit paint costs to reflect the first day corrections submitted by Regiomontana. 32. Regiomontana: We used the direct material cost from the COP/CV file submitted with the minor corrections on the first day of corrections. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of LWRPT from Mexico that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 13, 2004, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price or constructed export price, where appropriate, as indicated below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Final Determination of Investigation We have determined that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003: Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) Galvak, S.A. de C.V. and Hylsa, S.A. de C.V 17.46 Perfiles y Herrajes LM, S.A. de C.V 14.45 Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V 6.08 Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos, S.A. de C.V 6.36 All Others 11.23 International Trade Commission 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 determine, within 45 days, whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of 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 order directing CBP officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(AFA)for Home Market Sales to Affiliated Resellers that Failed the Arm's-Length Test. Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Apply Partial AFA to Account for Unreported Sales Discovered at Verification. Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Exclude Pre-Primered LWRPT from the Scope of Any Antidumping Duty Order Issued in this Investigation. Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Make an Adjustment for Differences in Prolamsa's Coil Costs. Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Correct Certain Clerical Errors in its Comparison Market and Margin Programs. Comment 8: Whether the Department Should “Zero” Negative Dumping Margins. Galvak/Hylsa Comment 9: Whether Galvak and Hylsa's U.S. Sales Should Be Classified as Constructed Export Price Transactions Because Galvak and Hylsa Were the U.S. Importers of Record. Comment 10: Whether Galvak and Hylsa's U.S. Sales Made Through an Affiliated U.S. Reseller Should be Classified as Constructed Export Price Transactions. Comment 11: Whether There Should be a Commission Offset. Comment 12: Whether Movement Expenses and Value-Added Taxes Should be Excluded from the Calculation of Credit Expense. Comment 13: Whether the ASTM Grade Should be Considered in the Department's Product Matching Criteria. Comment 14: Whether the Department Should Revise its Preliminary Level-of-Trade Analysis. Comment 15: Whether the Department Should Correct Minor Errors in its Preliminary Margin Calculation Program and in Data Submitted by Galvak/Hylsa. Regiomontana Comment 16: Whether to Calculate Normal Value and Export Price Based on an Actual or Theoretical-Weight Basis. Comment 17: Whether the Department Correctly Calculated the Reconciliation of Regiomontana's Home Market Sales in Regiomontana's Sales Verification Report. Comment 18: Whether the Department Should Classify Sales Made Through U.S. Commissioned Selling Agents as Constructed Export Price Transactions. LM Comment 19: Whether the Department Should Deny an Adjustment for Home Market Freight to the Customer for Sales from Warehouses. Comment 20: Whether the Department Should Deduct Home Market Prices For Warehousing at the Monterrey Warehouse. II. COST OF PRODUCTION Comment 21: Whether the Department Should Adjust Depreciation. Comment 22: Whether the Department Should Account for Total Foreign. Exchange Gains and Losses in Interest Expense. Comment 23: Whether the Department Should Make a Monetary Correction. Comment 24: Whether the Department Should Use Period of Investigation.

(POI)Data for Calculation of General and Administrative and Interest Expense Rates. Comment 25: Whether the Department Should Accept a Layered General and Administrative Expense Calculation. Comment 26: Whether a Reorganization Charge for Transfer of Administrative Activities to an Affiliate Should be Included as an Offset to General and Administrative Expenses. Comment 27: Whether Labor Charges for Affiliates Should be Included in Hylsa's General and Administrative Expenses. Comment 28: Whether Gain on Debt Restructuring Should be Included in Interest Expense. Comment 29: Whether Bonus Compensation Should be Included in Calculating Hylsa's General and Administrative Expense Ratio. Comment 30: Whether Certain Product Costs Were Mis-Classified. Comment 31: Whether the Value of Iron Ore Should Reflect the Higher of Transfer Price or Production Costs. Comment 32: Whether LM's Financial Expenses Are Overstated. Comment 33: Whether General and Administrative Expenses Should be Reduced to Correct Double Counting. Comment 34: Whether Overhead Expenses from Affiliates are Overstated. Comment 35: Whether Yield Loss Should be Adjusted. Comment 36: Whether Labor Costs Excluded Social Security Taxes. Comment 37: Whether the Total Cost of Manufacturing Should be Adjusted for an Unreconciled Difference. Comment 38: Whether Freight, Insurance, and Handling Charges Should be Included in Reported Costs. Comment 39: Whether the Department Should Correct Minor Errors Relating to Total Cost of Manufacturing. [FR Doc. E4-2045 Filed 9-1-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-838] Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce Effective Date: September 2, 2004. ACTION: Notice of initiation of changed circumstances review. SUMMARY: In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(b) (2002), Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. (ACI), Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada (ACCC), Produits Forestiers Petit Paris Inc. (PFPP), Societe en Commandite Scierie Opitciwan (Opiticwan) (collectively, the Abitibi Group) and Produits Forestiers Saguenay Inc. (PFS), Canadian producers of softwood lumber products and interested parties in this proceeding, filed a request for a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada, as described below. In response to this request, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber from Canada. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Handley or Saliha Loucif, at

(202)482-0631 or

(202)482-1779, respectively; Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background As a result of the antidumping duty order issued following the completion of the less-than-fair-value investigation of certain softwood lumber products from Canada, imports of softwood lumber from the Abitibi Group became subject to a cash deposit rate of 12.44 percent (see *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* 67 FR 36068 (May 22, 2002)). On July 29, 2004, the Abitibi Group notified the Department that effective June 1, 2004, PFS, a previously inactive holding company owned by ACCC, began producing softwood lumber and exporting it to the United States. As a result, the Abitibi Group is requesting that PFS be subject to the Abitibi Group's cash deposit rate of 12.44 percent. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are softwood lumber, flooring and siding (softwood lumber products). Softwood lumber products include all products classified under headings 4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, and 4409.1020, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and any softwood lumber, flooring and siding described below. These softwood lumber products include:

(1)Coniferous wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed, of a thickness exceeding six millimeters;

(2)coniferous wood siding (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed;

(3)other coniferous wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces (other than wood moldings and wood dowel rods) whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed; and

(4)coniferous wood flooring (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Preliminary scope exclusions and clarifications were published in three separate federal register notices. Softwood lumber products excluded from the scope: • trusses and truss kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4418.90, • I-joist beams. • assembled box spring frames. • pallets and pallet kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4415.20 • garage doors. • edge-glued wood, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.97.40 (formerly HTSUS 4421.90.98.40). • properly classified complete door frames. • properly classified complete window frames. • properly classified furniture. Softwood lumber products excluded from the scope only if they meet certain requirements: • *Stringers (pallet components used for runners)* : if they have at least two notches on the side, positioned at equal distance from the center, to properly accommodate forklift blades, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.97.40 (formerly HTSUS 4421.90.98.40). • *Box-spring frame kits* : if they contain the following wooden pieces—two side rails, two end (or top) rails and varying numbers of slats. The side rails and the end rails should be radius-cut at both ends. The kits should be individually packaged, they should contain the exact number of wooden components needed to make a particular box spring frame, with no further processing required. None of the components exceeds 1″ in actual thickness or 83″ in length. • *Radius-cut box-spring-frame components* , not exceeding 1″ in actual thickness or 83″ in length, ready for assembly without further processing. The radius cuts must be present on both ends of the boards and must be substantial cuts so as to completely round one corner. • *Fence pickets* requiring no further processing and properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.70, 1 or less in actual thickness, up to 8″ wide, 6′ or less in length, and have finials or decorative cuttings that clearly identify them as fence pickets. In the case of dog-eared fence pickets, the corners of the boards should be cut off so as to remove pieces of wood in the shape of isosceles right angle triangles with sides measuring 3/4 inch or more. • *U.S. origin lumber* shipped to Canada for minor processing and imported into the United States, is excluded from the scope of this order if the following conditions are met:

(1)the processing occurring in Canada is limited to kiln-drying, planing to create smooth-to-size board, and sanding, and

(2)if the importer establishes to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's

(CBP)satisfaction that the lumber is of U.S. origin. • *Softwood lumber products contained in single family home packages or kits,* 1 regardless of tariff classification, are excluded from the scope of the orders if the following criteria are met: 1 To ensure administrability, we clarified the language of this exclusion to require an importer certification and to permit single or multiple entries on multiple days as well as instructing importers to retain and make available for inspection specific documentation in support of each entry. 1. The imported home package or kit constitutes a full package of the number of wooden pieces specified in the plan, design or blueprint necessary to produce a home of at least 700 square feet produced to a specified plan, design or blueprint; 2. The package or kit must contain all necessary internal and external doors and windows, nails, screws, glue, subfloor, sheathing, beams, posts, connectors and if included in purchase contract decking, trim, drywall and roof shingles specified in the plan, design or blueprint; 3. Prior to importation, the package or kit must be sold to a retailer of complete home packages or kits pursuant to a valid purchase contract referencing the particular home design plan or blueprint, and signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer; 4. The whole package must be imported under a single consolidated entry when permitted by CBP, whether or not on a single or multiple trucks, rail cars or other vehicles, which shall be on the same day except when the home is over 2,000 square feet; 5. The following documentation must be included with the entry documents: • A copy of the appropriate home design, plan, or blueprint matching the entry; • A purchase contract from a retailer of home kits or packages signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer; • A listing of inventory of all parts of the package or kit being entered that conforms to the home design package being entered; • In the case of multiple shipments on the same contract, all items listed immediately above which are included in the present shipment shall be identified as well. We have determined that the excluded products listed above are outside the scope of this order provided the specified conditions are met. Lumber products that CBP may classify as stringers, radius cut box-spring-frame components, and fence pickets, not conforming to the above requirements, as well as truss components, pallet components, and door and window frame parts, are covered under the scope of this order and may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 4418.90.40.90, 4421.90.70.40, and 4421.90.98.40. Due to changes in the 2002 HTSUS whereby subheading 4418.90.40.90 and 4421.90.98.40 were changed to 4418.90.45.90 and 4421.90.97.40, respectively, we are adding these subheadings as well. In addition, this scope language has been further clarified to now specify that all softwood lumber products entered from Canada claiming non-subject status based on U.S. country of origin will be treated as non-subject U.S.-origin merchandise under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, provided that these softwood lumber products meet the following condition: upon entry, the importer, exporter, Canadian processor and/or original U.S. producer establish to CBP's satisfaction that the softwood lumber entered and documented as U.S.-origin softwood lumber was first produced in the United States as a lumber product satisfying the physical parameters of the softwood lumber scope. 2 The presumption of non-subject status can, however, be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that the merchandise was substantially transformed in Canada. 2 See the scope clarification message (3034202), dated February 3, 2003, to CBP, regarding treatment of U.S.-origin lumber on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The Abitibi Group contends that PFS, because it is controlled by ACCC, which owns 50 percent or more of PFS' shares, and because it has production facilities similar or identical to other members of the Abitibi Group as well as intertwined sales processes, should be subject to the Abitibi Group cash deposit rate. Based on these circumstances and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(b), the Department finds good cause to initiate a changed circumstances review. *Therefore, we are initiating* a changed circumstances administrative review pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b) to determine whether entries naming PFS as manufacturer and exporter should receive the Abitibi Group cash deposit rate of 12.44 percent. *The Department will publish in the* Federal Register *a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances antidumping duty administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. The Department will issue its final results of review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e).* This notice is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 26, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2042 Filed 9-1-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 082504B] Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Draft Generic Amendment to Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plans for Offshore Aquaculture AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a draft supplemental environmental impact statement; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS intend to prepare a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) in support of a proposed Generic Amendment for Offshore Aquaculture. The DSEIS will evaluate alternatives for regulating aquaculture activities in the Gulf of Mexico. The purpose of this notice of intent is to solicit public comments on the range of alternatives and scope of issues to be addressed in the DSEIS. DATES: Written comments on the scope of the DSEIS must be received by 5 p.m. October 4, 2004. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional information regarding oral comments. ADDRESSES: Comments on the scope of the DSEIS and requests for the scoping document may be directed to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, The Commons at Rivergate, 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33619; telephone: 813-228-2815; fax: 813-225-7015. Comments also may be submitted via e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *aquaculture.gulf@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: Generic Amendment for Offshore Aquaculture. Scoping documents are also available to download at *http://www.gulfcouncil.org* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Swingle (phone: 813-228-2815, fax: 813-225-7015, e-mail: *Wayne.Swingle@gulfcouncil.org* ); Andy Strelcheck (phone: 727-570-5305, fax: 727-570-5583, e-mail: *Andy.Strelcheck@noaa.gov* ); or visit the Council's web page at *http://www.gulfcouncil.org* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council and NMFS intend to prepare a DSEIS in support of a proposed Generic Amendment for Offshore Aquaculture. The DSEIS will evaluate alternatives for regulating aquaculture activities in the Gulf of Mexico, including:

(1)Whether to implement a generic amendment for offshore aquaculture,

(2)the overall scope of the generic amendment,

(3)permit and operational requirements for aquaculture facilities,

(4)fishery management plans that would be affected by the amendment, and

(5)stocks that would be affected by the amendment. The DSEIS will also evaluate: best management practices for cage and net-pen facilities, scientific information on the culture of marine fish, and the environmental effects of aquaculture. Alternatives currently under consideration are described in detail in “The Scoping Document for a Generic Amendment to Provide for Regulation of Offshore Marine Aquaculture for Selected Fish.” The Council is soliciting public comment on the range of alternatives and scope of issues that should be considered in the DSEIS. Persons may request a copy of the scoping document from the Council (see ADDRESSES for contact information). In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order

(NAO)216-6, Section 502(c)4, the Council previously held eight scoping hearings during February and March 2004 (69 FR 7185) to solicit input from interested parties on proposed actions and alternatives identified in the above-mentioned scoping document. The hearings were held in the following locations: Biloxi, MS; Corpus Christi, TX; Galveston, TX; Key West, FL; Larose, LA; Madeira Beach, FL; Mobile, AL; and Panama City, FL. Additionally, public comments may be accepted at the following Council meetings and during public hearings that will be announced in future **Federal Register** notices: 1. September 13-17, 2004, Edgewater Beach Resort, 11212 Front Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32407. 2. November 7-10, 2004, Sheraton, 310 Padre Boulevard, South Padre Island, TX 78597. 3. January 10-13, 2005, Sheraton, 102 France Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802. 4. March 7-10, 2005, Wynfrey, 100 Riverchase Galleria, Birmingham, AL 35244. The meetings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Wayne Swingle at the Council (see ADDRESSES ). The completed DSEIS associated with the draft Generic Amendment for Offshore Aquaculture will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced in the **Federal Register** , and open to public comment for a 45-day period. This procedure is pursuant to regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ)for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)(and to NAO 216-6 on complying with NEPA and the CEQ regulations). The Council will consider public comments received on the DSEIS in developing the final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS), and will consider public comments before taking final action on the Generic Amendment for Offshore Aquaculture. The Council will submit both the final amendment and the supporting FSEIS to NMFS for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation under the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NMFS will announce, through a notice published in the **Federal Register** , the availability of the final Generic Amendment for Offshore Aquaculture for public review during the Secretarial review period. During Secretarial review, NMFS will also file the FSEIS with the EPA for a final 30-day public comment period. This comment period will be concurrent with the Secretarial review period and will end prior to final agency action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the final Generic Amendment for Offshore Aquaculture. NMFS will announce, through a notice published in the **Federal Register** , all public comment periods on the final Generic Amendment for Offshore Aquaculture, any proposed implementing regulations, and its associated FSEIS. NMFS will consider all public comments received during the Secretarial review period, whether they are on the final Amendment, any proposed regulations, or the FSEIS, prior to final agency action. Dated: August 30, 2004. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 04-20055 Filed 9-1-04; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 6

Traces to 6 documents

CFR

Citation graph

cites case law

Notices

Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value

Cites 6Cited by 0 across 0 sources