Notices. Notice and request for applications

12,255 words·~56 min read·/register/2005/03/11/05-4847

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

BILLING CODE 3510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-850] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 20, 2004, the Department of Commerce published a preliminary determination in the antidumping duty investigation of live swine from Canada. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary determination.

Based upon the results of verification and our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes. We continue to find that live swine from Canada were sold in the United States below normal value during the period of investigation. The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the section entitled “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation.” DATES: *Effective Date:* March 11, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole Kyle or Andrew Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1503 or

(202)482-1276, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 20, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary determination in its investigation of live swine from Canada. * See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Live Swine From Canada, * 69 FR 61639 (October 20, 2004) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). Since the *Preliminary Determination* , the following events have occurred: On October 25, 2004, Excel requested that the Department reconsider its preliminary decision to rescind its selection of Excel as a mandatory respondent in this investigation. On November 3, 2004, the Department decided to verify Excel's questionnaire responses. On November 29, 2004, Premium Pork Canada, Inc. (“Premium Pork”) withdrew from this investigation. In November and December 2004, and January 2005, we conducted verifications of the sales and cost of production (“COP”) questionnaire responses submitted by Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board (“Ontario Pork”), Hytek, Inc. (“Hytek”), and Excel Swine Services, Inc. (“Excel”) at each company's headquarters and at certain farm locations. We issued verification reports in January 2005. We received case and rebuttal briefs from the Illinois Pork Producers Association, the Indiana Pork Advocacy Coalition, the Iowa Pork Producers Association, the Minnesota Pork Producers Association, the Missouri Pork Association, the Nebraska Pork Producers Association, Inc., the North Carolina Pork Council, Inc., the Ohio Pork Producers Council, and 119 individual producers of live swine 1 (collectively, hereinafter, “the petitioners”), Excel, Hytek, Ontario Pork, and Baxter Transport, Ltd., J. Quintaine & Son, Ltd., and Zantingh Swine Inc. 1 Alan Christensen, Alicia Prill-Adams, Aulis Farms, Baarsch Pork Farm, Inc., Bailey Terra Nova Farms, Bartling Brothers Inc., Belstra Milling Co. Inc., Berend Bros. Hog Farm LLC, Bill Tempel, BK Pork Inc., Blue Wing Farm, Bornhorst Bros, Brandt Bros., Bredehoeft Farms, Inc., Bruce Samson, Bryant Premium Pork LLC, Buhl's Ridge View Farm, Charles Rossow, Cheney Farms, Chinn Hog Farm, Circle K Family Farms LLC, Cleland Farm, Clougherty Packing Company, Coharie Hog Farm, County Line Swine Inc., Craig Mensick, Daniel J. Pung, David Hansen, De Young Hog Farm LLC, Dean Schrag, Dean Vantiger, Dennis Geinger, Double “M” Inc., Dykhuis Farms, Inc., E & L Harrison Enterprises, Inc., Erle Lockhart, Ernest Smith, F & D Farms, Fisher Hog Farm, Fitzke Farm, Fultz Farms, Gary and Warren Oberdiek Partnership, Geneseo Pork, Inc., GLM Farms, Greenway Farms, H & H Feed and Grain, H & K Enterprises, LTD, Ham Hill Farms, Inc., Harrison Creek Farm, Harty Hog Farms, Heartland Pork LLC, Heritage Swine, High Lean Pork, Inc., Hilman Schroeder, Holden Farms Inc., Huron Pork, LLC, Hurst AgriQuest, J D Howerton and Sons, J. L. Ledger, Inc., Jack Rodibaugh & Sons, Inc., JC Howard Farms, Jesina Farms, Inc., Jim Kemper, Jorgensen Pork, Keith Berry Farms, Kellogg Farms, Kendale Farm, Kessler Farms, L.L Murphrey Company, Lange Farms LLC, Larson Bros Dairy Inc., Levelvue Pork Shop, Long Ranch Inc., Lou Stoller & Sons, Inc., Luckey Farm, Mac-O-Cheek, Inc., Martin Gingerich, Marvin Larrick, Max Schmidt, Maxwell Foods, Inc., Mckenzie-Reed Farms, Meier Family Farms Inc., MFA Inc., Michael Farm, Mike Bayes, Mike Wehler, Murphy Brown LLC, Ned Black and Sons, Ness Farms, Next Generation Pork, Inc., Noecker Farms, Oaklane Colony, Orangeburg Foods, Oregon Pork, Pitstick Pork Farms Inc., Prairie Lake Farms, Inc., Premium Standard Farms, Inc., Prestage Farms, Inc., R Hogs LLC, Rehmeier Farms, Rodger Schamberg, Scott W. Tapper, Sheets Farm, Smith-Healy Farms, Inc., Square Butte Farm, Steven A. Gay, Sunnycrest Inc., Trails End Far, Inc., TruLine Genetics, Two Mile Pork, Valley View Farm, Van Dell Farms, Inc., Vollmer Farms, Walters Farms LLP, Watertown Weaners, Inc., Wen Mar Farms, Inc., William Walter Farm, Willow Ridge Farm LLC, Wolf Farms, Wondraful Pork Systems, Inc., Wooden Purebred Swine Farms, Woodlawn Farms, and Zimmerman Hog Farms. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is all live swine (“swine” or “subject merchandise”) from Canada except breeding stock swine. Live swine are defined as four-legged, monogastric (single-chambered stomach), litter-bearing (litters typically range from 8 to 12 animals), of the species *sus scrofa domesticus* . This merchandise is currently classifiable under *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“ *HTSUS* ”) subheadings 0103.91.00 and 0103.92.00. Specifically excluded from this scope are breeding stock, including U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) certified purebred breeding stock and all other breeding stock. The designation of the product as “breeding stock” indicates the acceptability of the product for use as breeding live swine. This designation is presumed to indicate that these products are being used for breeding stock only. However, should the petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than this application, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Although the *HTSUS* headings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments In the *Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Live Swine from Canada* , 69 FR 19815 (April 14, 2004) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”), we invited comments on the scope of this proceeding. On May 4, 2004, we received a request from the GOC to amend the scope of this investigation and the companion countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigation. Specifically, the GOC requested that the scope be amended to exclude hybrid breeding stock. According to the GOC, domestic producers use hybrid breeding stock instead of purebred stock to strengthen their strains of swine. The GOC stated that no evidence was provided of injury, or threat of injury, to the domestic live swine industry from the importation of hybrid breeding stock. Furthermore, the GOC noted that the petition excluded USDA certified purebred breeding swine from the scope of the above-mentioned investigations. The GOC argued that the documentation which accompanies imported hybrid breeding swine makes it easy to distinguish hybrid breeding swine from other live swine. On August 4, 2004, the petitioners submitted a response to the GOC's scope exclusion request and proposed modified scope language. The petitioners stated they did not oppose the GOC's request to exclude hybrid breeding stock, but were concerned about the potential for circumvention of any CVD or antidumping duty (“AD”) order on live swine from Canada through non-breeding swine entering the domestic market as breeding stock. Thus, the petitioners proposed modified scope language that would require end-use certification if the petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than this application. Moreover, on July 30, 2004, the petitioners submitted a request to the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to modify the *HTSUS* by adding a statistical breakout that would separately report imports of breeding animals other than purebred breeding animals, allowing the domestic industry to monitor the import trends of hybrid breeding stock. On August 9, 2004, both the GOC and the respondent companies submitted comments to respond to the petitioners' proposed revised scope. Both the GOC and the respondent companies stated that they generally agreed with the petitioners' modified scope language, with the two following exceptions:

(1)They contended that the petitioners' language setting forth the mechanics of any end use certification procedure was premature and unnecessary, and

(2)they argued that the petitioners' language stating that “all products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope” was unnecessary because the physical description of the merchandise in scope remains determinative. On August 12, 2004, the petitioners submitted a response to the August 9, 2004 comments from the GOC and the respondents. The petitioners reiterated their support for their proposed modification to the scope language. They argued that

(1)their proposed language had been used before by the Department in other proceedings;

(2)since U.S. importers bear the burden of paying the duties, the importers should be required to certify to the end use of the product; and

(3)with the petitioners' concerns about circumvention, the “physical description” language provided an important clarification that all live swine except for the excluded products are included in the scope. As further discussed in the August 16, 2004 memorandum entitled “ *Scope Exclusion Request: Hybrid Breeding Stock* ” (on file in the Department's Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Department building (“CRU”)), we preliminarily revised the scope in both the AD and companion CVD proceedings based on the above scope comments. *See Preliminary Determination* , 69 FR 61639, 61640-61641, and *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Live Swine from Canada* , 69 FR 51800, 51801-51802 (August 23, 2004). No further scope comments were received from any party subsequent to these preliminary determination. Thus, we have adopted the revised scope from the *Preliminary Determination* for this final determination. The revised scope language is included in the “Scope of Investigation” section, above. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the filing of the petition on March 5, 2004. Facts Otherwise Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , a respondent

(A)withholds information that has been requested;

(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of Section 782;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding; or

(D)provides information that cannot be verified. Section 782(e) of the Act further provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and that is necessary to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the Department if

(1)the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission;

(2)the information can be verified;

(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;

(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the Department with respect to the information; and

(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Premium Pork responded to the Department's questionnaires and otherwise participated in this investigation until November 29, 2004, two weeks before Premium Pork's scheduled verification. On November 29, 2004, Premium Pork withdrew from this investigation because of its impending dissolution. *See* Premium Pork's November 29, 2004 withdrawal letter. Premium Pork's receivers stated that its companies would “not continue their current integrated operations” after its asset sales were completed. *Id* . The Department has not received any further communication from Premium Pork. In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. *See, e.g, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil.* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870

(1994)(“ *SAA* ”). In this case, Premium Pork ultimately failed to cooperate to the best of its ability because it failed to participate in verification. Therefore, the Department finds that in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil* , 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004) and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 22 (the Department applied total adverse facts available where the respondent withdrew from the investigation prior to verification) and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan* , 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000) (the Department applied total adverse facts available where the respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaires). As adverse facts available, we have assigned Premium Pork a margin of 18.87 percent, the highest price-to-price margin alleged in the petition, in accordance with section 776(b)(1). Section 776(b) of the Act notes that an adverse facts available rate may include reliance on information derived from:

(1)The petition;

(2)a final determination in the investigation;

(3)any previous review; or

(4)any other information placed on the record. Thus, the statute does not limit the specific sources from which the Department may obtain information for use as facts available. The *SAA* recognizes the importance of adverse facts available as an investigative tool in antidumping proceedings. The Department's potential use of adverse facts available provides the only incentive to foreign exporters and producers to respond to the Department's questionnaires. *See SAA* at 868. Section 776(c) of the Act mandates that the Department, to the extent practicable, shall corroborate secondary information (such as petition data) using independent sources reasonably at its disposal. In accordance with the law, the Department, to the extent practicable, will examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. To corroborate the margin assigned to Premium Pork, we compared the normal values and U.S. prices submitted by the petitioners, as amended by the Department in the April 7, 2004, *Initiation Checklist* , to data submitted by the respondents for whom we are calculating a margin. *See* March 4, 2004, memorandum, “Final Determination of Live Swine from Canada: Corroboration Memorandum.” This comparison corroborates and supports the reliability of the selected margin. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin ( *see, e.g.* , *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin)). Therefore, we also examined whether any information on the record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available for Premium Pork. No such information exists. In particular, there is no information that might lead to a conclusion that a different rate would be more appropriate. Accordingly, we have assigned Premium Pork the rate of 18.87 percent as total adverse facts available. This is consistent with section 776(b) of the Act which states that adverse inferences may include reliance on information derived from the petition. Fair Value Comparisons We calculated constructed export price, export price, and normal value based on the same methodologies used in the *Preliminary Determination* and in our November 3, 2004, calculations 2 for Excel, with the following exceptions: 2 *See* Memorandum to File, “Export Price Calculation Memorandum for Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, Rainbow Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, and Big Boulder Creek Farms, Ltd.,” dated November 3, 2004, and Memorandum to File, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Memorandum—Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, Rainbow Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, and Big Boulder Creek Farms, Ltd.,” dated November 3, 2004. Ontario Pork We used the sales databases submitted by Ontario Pork after verification, which include the minor corrections presented at verification. We revised Ontario Pork's advertising expenses. *See Decision Memorandum* at Comment 6. We did not include the U.S. direct selling expense that we included in the *Preliminary Determination. See Decision Memorandum* at Comment 7. We revised Ontario Pork's reported crossing fees based on information contained in Ontario Pork's verification exhibits. *See* Memorandum to File, “Ontario Pork Producers’ Marketing Board Final Determination Calculation Memorandum,” dated March 4, 2005. Excel We used the U.S. database submitted by Excel after verification in our margin calculations, which includes the minor corrections presented at verification. In addition, we disregarded sales of substandard merchandise. *See Decision Memorandum* at Comment 51. *See* Memorandum to File, “Excel Swine Service, Inc. Final Determination Calculation Memorandum,” dated March 4, 2005. Hytek We used the databases submitted by Hytek after verification, which include the minor corrections presented at verification. For Hytek's U.S. sales, we accounted for an additional billing adjustment and direct selling expense which were presented as minor corrections at verification. In our product comparisons, we prevented matches between U.S. sales of isoweans and home market sales of spent boars. *See* Memorandum to File, “Hytek, Ltd. Final Determination Calculation Memorandum,” dated March 4, 2005. Cost of Production and Constructed Value We calculated the cost of production (“COP”) and constructed value (“CV”) for Ontario Pork, Hytek, and Excel based on the same methodologies used in the *Preliminary Determination* , and in our November 3, 2004, calculations 3 for Excel, except for those changes noted in the Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Final Determination—Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board Cost Respondents,” dated March 4, 2005; Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Determination—Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony of Hutterian Bretheren Trust, Rainbow Colony of Hutterian Bretheren Trust, and Big Boulder Creek Farms Ltd.,” dated March 4, 2005; and Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Final Determination—Hytek Ltd.,” dated March 4, 2005. 3 *See* Memorandum to File, “Export Price Calculation Memorandum for Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, Rainbow Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, and Big Boulder Creek Farms, Ltd.,” dated November 3, 2004, and Memorandum to File, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Memorandum—Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, Rainbow Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, and Big Boulder Creek Farms, Ltd.,” dated November 3, 2004. Home Market Sales Disregarded Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine that the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. With respect to Ontario Pork and Hytek, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Verifications As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondents during November and December, 2004, and January, 2005. We used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by the respondents. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the petitioners' and the respondents' case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the March 4, 2005, *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Live Swine from Canada* (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”) which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues that the petitioners and the respondents have raised and to which we have responded in the *Decision Memorandum.* Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these investigations and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's CRU. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.htm.* The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from Canada, except merchandise produced and exported by Hytek, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 20, 2004, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . The CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. For Hytek, because its estimated weighted-average final dumping margin is *de minimis* , we are directing CBP to terminate suspension of liquidation of Hytek's entries and refund all bonds and cash deposits posted on subject merchandise produced by Hytek. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board 12.68 percent. Hytek, Inc 0.53 percent ( *de minimis* ). Premium Pork Canada, Inc 18.87 percent (AFA). Excel Swine Services, Inc 4.64 percent. All Others 10.63 percent. 4 4 We excluded the *de minimis* margin and the margin based on adverse facts available from the calculation of the all-others rate. *See* Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 4, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix General Issues Comment 1: Perishable Agricultural Products Comment 2: Net Income Stabilization Account Comment 3: Allocation of Total Production Costs Company Specific Issues Premium Pork Comment 4: Premium Pork Withdrawal Ontario Pork Comment 5: Monthly Price-Averaging Comment 6: Advertising Expenses Comment 7: Bank Charges Comment 8: Credit Expenses Comment 9: Freight Expenses Ontario Pork Farm A Comment 10: Cost of Feed Comment 11: Imputed Labor Costs Comment 12: Cost of Breeding Stock Comment 13: Denominator Used for the General and Administrative Expense Ratio Comment 14: Breeding Stock Salvage Value Comment 15: Sows Supplied by Affiliates Comment 16: Hogs Used for Personal Consumption Comment 17: Per-unit Finishing Costs Adjusted by the Feeders Sold Comment 18: Farm A's Change in Inventory Values Comment 19: Livestock Purchases in the Indirect Cost Allocation Comment 20: Lease of Crop Land Comment 21: Optional Inventory Adjustment Comment 22: Additional Accrued Cost Items Comment 23: G&A Expenses Comment 24: Interest Rates Ontario Pork Farm B Comment 25: Affiliated Feed Company Comment 26: Tile Drainage Comment 27: Interest Income Earned on NISA and Risk Management Funding Comment 28: Prepaid Feed Costs Comment 29: Donated Hogs Comment 30: Misallocated Costs Comment 31: Reconciliation Error Comment 32: Imputed Labor Comment 33: Interest Expense for Loan Comment 34: Interest Income Ontario Pork Farm C Comment 35: Claimed Offsets for Subsidies Comment 36: Failure to Report all Feed Costs Comment 37: Capitalized Feed Costs Comment 38: Errors Revealed During Verification Should be Corrected Comment 39: Proper Treatment of “Credit to Barn Quality” Account Comment 40: G&A Expenses Comment 41: Collapsing the Operations of Affiliated Suppliers Ontario Pork Farm D Comment 42: Costs Related to Transporting Hogs to the Farm Comment 43: Vaccination Costs of Resold Isoweans Comment 44: Cost of Feed Produced by the Partners Comment 45: Price of Corn Set by the Partners for November and December 2003 Comment 46: Depreciation Cost Comment 47: G&A Offset for Land Rental Income Comment 48: Labor Allocation Comment 49: G&A Expenses Related to Fines Excel Comment 50: Mandatory Respondent Status Comment 51: Sales Exclusions Comment 52: Fertilizer as a Credit to the Cost of Producing Live Swine Excel Rainbow Colony Comment 53: Production Quantity Comment 54: Insurance Premiums Comment 55: Accrued Labor Costs Comment 56: Productive Assets Quantity Comment 57: Disputed Fertilizer Purchases Comment 58: Startup Adjustment Excel Riverbend Colony Comment 59: Foreign Exchange Expense Comment 60: GST Audit Adjustment Comment 61: Labor Excel Big Boulder Comment 62: Rental Income G&A Offset Comment 63: Fiscal Year G&A and Financial Expense Ratios Comment 64: Insurance and Donations Hytek Comment 65: CEP Profit Comment 66: Further Manufacturing Costs Comment 67: Certain Payments to Owners Comment 68: Interest Income [FR Doc. E5-1029 Filed 3-10-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-806] Silicon Metal From Brazil: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor or Steven Ryan, at

(202)482-5831 or

(202)482-0065, respectively; Import Administration, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Background On August 24, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part,* 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004). The period of review is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Review Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. The preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review of silicon metal from Brazil are currently scheduled to be completed on April 2, 2005. However, the Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results in this administrative review of silicon metal from Brazil within this time limit because additional time is needed to fully address issues relating to affiliation, treatment of value added taxes, reconciliation of costs to financial statements and the calculation of the total cost of manufacturing, as well as to conduct mandatory verifications of the questionnaire responses and supplemental questionnaire responses. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of this review until August 1, 2005, which is the next business day after 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The deadline for the final results of this administrative review continues to be 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Dated: March 7, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1027 Filed 3-10-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-122-851] Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Live Swine from Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce has made a final determination that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers or exporters of live swine from Canada. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 11, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melani Miller Harig, Stephen Cho, Daniel J. Alexy, and Marc Rivitz, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-0116,

(202)482-3798,

(202)482-1540, and

(202)482-1382, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petitioners The petitioners in this investigation are the Illinois Pork Producers Association, the Indiana Pork Advocacy Coalition, the Iowa Pork Producers Association, the Minnesota Pork Producers Association, the Missouri Pork Association, the Nebraska Pork Producers Association, Inc., the North Carolina Pork Council, Inc., the Ohio Pork Producers Council, and 119 individual producers of live swine 1 (collectively, “the petitioners”). 1 Alan Christensen, Alicia Prill-Adams, Aulis Farms, Baarsch Pork Farm, Inc., Bailey Terra Nova Farms, Bartling Brothers Inc., Belstra Milling Co. Inc., Berend Bros. Hog Farm LLC, Bill Tempel, BK Pork Inc., Blue Wing Farm, Bornhorst Bros, Brandt Bros., Bredehoeft Farms, Inc., Bruce Samson, Bryant Premium Pork LLC, Buhl's Ridge View Farm, Charles Rossow, Cheney Farms, Chinn Hog Farm, Circle K Family Farms LLC, Cleland Farm, Clougherty Packing Company, Coharie Hog Farm, County Line Swine Inc., Craig Mensick, Daniel J. Pung, David Hansen, De Young Hog Farm LLC, Dean Schrag, Dean Vantiger, Dennis Geinger, Double “M” Inc., Dykhuis Farms, Inc., E & L Harrison Enterprises, Inc., Erle Lockhart, Ernest Smith, F & D Farms, Fisher Hog Farm, Fitzke Farm, Fultz Farms, Gary and Warren Oberdiek Partnership, Geneseo Pork, Inc., GLM Farms, Greenway Farms, H & H Feed and Grain, H & K Enterprises, LTD, Ham Hill Farms, Inc., Harrison Creek Farm, Harty Hog Farms, Heartland Pork LLC, Heritage Swine, High Lean Pork, Inc., Hilman Schroeder, Holden Farms Inc., Huron Pork, LLC, Hurst AgriQuest, J D Howerton and Sons, J. L. Ledger, Inc., Jack Rodibaugh & Sons, Inc., JC Howard Farms, Jesina Farms, Inc., Jim Kemper, Jorgensen Pork, Keith Berry Farms, Kellogg Farms, Kendale Farm, Kessler Farms, L.L Murphrey Company, Lange Farms LLC, Larson Bros Dairy Inc., Levelvue Pork Shop, Long Ranch Inc., Lou Stoller & Sons, Inc., Luckey Farm, Mac-O-Cheek, Inc., Martin Gingerich, Marvin Larrick, Max Schmidt, Maxwell Foods, Inc., Mckenzie-Reed Farms, Meier Family Farms Inc., MFA Inc., Michael Farm, Mike Bayes, Mike Wehler, Murphy Brown LLC, Ned Black and Sons, Ness Farms, Next Generation Pork, Inc., Noecker Farms, Oaklane Colony, Orangeburg Foods, Oregon Pork, Pitstick Pork Farms Inc., Prairie Lake Farms, Inc., Premium Standard Farms, Inc., Prestage Farms, Inc., R Hogs LLC, Rehmeier Farms, Rodger Schamberg, Scott W. Tapper, Sheets Farm, Smith-Healy Farms, Inc., Square Butte Farm, Steven A. Gay, Sunnycrest Inc., Trails End Far, Inc., TruLine Genetics, Two Mile Pork, Valley View Farm, Van Dell Farms, Inc., Vollmer Farms, Walters Farms LLP, Watertown Weaners, Inc., Wen Mar Farms, Inc., William Walter Farm, Willow Ridge Farm LLC, Wolf Farms, Wondraful Pork Systems, Inc., Wooden Purebred Swine Farms, Woodlawn Farms, and Zimmerman Hog Farms. Case History The following events have occurred since the publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** on August 23, 2004. *See Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Live Swine from Canada* , 69 FR 51800 (August 23, 2004) (“Preliminary Determination”). On September 9, 2004, the petitioners submitted comments on the upcoming verifications. On September 14, 2004, the petitioners submitted arguments relating to certain requests made by the Government of Canada (“GOC”) for business proprietary treatment in its questionnaire responses. The GOC filed a response to this submission on September 22, 2004. On September 17 and 27, 2004, Sureleen-Albion Agra Inc. (“Sureleen”)/Bujet Sow Group (“BSG”) and Hytek Ltd. (“Hytek”), respectively, submitted new factual information and corrections to their previous responses. The GOC also submitted revised information from its questionnaire responses on October 5, 2004. From September 27, 2004 through October 8, 2004, and October 18, 2004 through October 21, 2004, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOC; the Governments of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta; Sureleen/BSG; Hytek; Premium Pork Canada Inc.; Hart Feeds Limited; Elite Swine Inc./Maple Leaf Foods Inc.; Park View Colony Farms Ltd.; and Willow Creek Colony Ltd. We also verified the information submitted by M & F Trading Inc., Maximum Swine Marketing, and Excel Swine Services, the three trading companies/cooperatives covered by this investigation, as part of the verification of the GOC and the provincial governments. We received case briefs from the petitioners and the Government of Saskatchewan on January 7, 2005. The respondents (collectively) and the petitioners submitted rebuttal briefs on January 14, 2005. We held a hearing in this investigation on January 19, 2005. Public transcripts from this hearing are available in the Department of Commerce's (“Department”) Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Department building (“CRU”). Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or the period of investigation, is calendar year 2003. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is all live swine (“swine” or “subject merchandise”) from Canada except breeding stock swine. Live swine are defined as four-legged, monogastric (single-chambered stomach), litter-bearing (litters typically range from 8 to 12 animals), of the species *sus scrofa domesticus* . This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized *Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“ *HTSUS* ”) subheadings 0103.91.00 and 0103.92.00. Specifically excluded from this scope are breeding stock, including U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) certified purebred breeding stock and all other breeding stock. The designation of the product as “breeding stock” indicates the acceptability of the product for use as breeding live swine. This designation is presumed to indicate that these products are being used for breeding stock only. However, should the petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than this application, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Although the *HTSUS* headings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments In the *Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Live Swine From Canada* , 69 FR 19818 (April 14, 2004), we invited comments on the scope of this proceeding. On May 4, 2004, we received a request from the GOC to amend the scope of this investigation and the companion antidumping duty (“AD”) investigation. Specifically, the GOC requested that the scope be amended to exclude hybrid breeding stock. According to the GOC, domestic producers use hybrid breeding stock instead of purebred stock to strengthen their strains of swine. The GOC stated that no evidence was provided of injury, or threat of injury, to the domestic live swine industry from the importation of hybrid breeding stock. Furthermore, the GOC noted that the petition excluded USDA certified purebred breeding swine from the scope of the above-mentioned investigations. The GOC argued that the documentation which accompanies imported hybrid breeding swine makes it easy to distinguish hybrid breeding swine from other live swine. On August 4, 2004, the petitioners submitted a response to the GOC's scope exclusion request and proposed modified scope language. The petitioners stated they did not oppose the GOC's request to exclude hybrid breeding stock, but were concerned about the potential for circumvention of any AD or countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on live swine from Canada through non-breeding swine entering the domestic market as breeding stock. Thus, the petitioners proposed modified scope language that would require end-use certification if the petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than this application. Moreover, on July 30, 2004, the petitioners submitted a request to the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to modify the *HTSUS* by adding a statistical breakout that would separately report imports of breeding animals other than purebred breeding animals, allowing the domestic industry to monitor the import trends of hybrid breeding stock. On August 9, 2004, both the GOC and the respondent companies submitted comments to respond to the petitioners' proposed revised scope. Both the GOC and the respondent companies stated that they generally agreed with the petitioners' modified scope language, with the two following exceptions: 1) they contended that the petitioners' language setting forth the mechanics of any end use certification procedure was premature and unnecessary, and 2) they argued that the petitioners' language stating that “all products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope” was unnecessary because the physical description of the merchandise in scope remains determinative. On August 12, 2004, the petitioners submitted a response to the August 9, 2004 comments from the GOC and the respondents. The petitioners reiterated their support for their proposed modification to the scope language. They argued that 1) their proposed language had been used before by the Department in other proceedings; 2) since U.S. importers bear the burden of paying the duties, the importers should be required to certify to the end use of the product; and 3) with the petitioners' concerns about circumvention, the “physical description” language provided an important clarification that all live swine except for the excluded products are included in the scope. As further discussed in the August 16, 2004 memorandum entitled “ *Scope Exclusion Request: Hybrid Breeding Stock* ” (on file in the Department's CRU), we preliminarily revised the scope in both the CVD and companion AD proceedings based on the above scope comments. *See Preliminary Determination* , 69 FR 81800, 51801-51802, and *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Live Swine from Canada* , 69 FR 61639, 61640-61641 (October 20, 2004). No further scope comments were received from any party subsequent to these preliminary determinations. Thus, we have adopted the revised scope from the *Preliminary Determination* for this final determination. The revised scope language is included in the “Scope of Investigation” section, above. Injury Test Because Canada is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act effective January 1, 1995 (“the Act”), the ITC is required to determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Canada materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. On May 10, 2004, the ITC transmitted to the Department its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is being materially injured by reason of imports from Canada of the subject merchandise. *See Live Swine From Canada* , 69 FR 26884 (May 14, 2004). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the March 4, 2005 “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the *Decision Memorandum* . Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ under the heading “Canada.” The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Suspension of Liquidation In the *Preliminary Determination* , the total net countervailable subsidy rate was de minimis and, therefore, we did not suspend liquidation. For the final determination, because the rate remains *de minimis* , we are not directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of live swine from Canada. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 4, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* Specificity *Comment 2:* Green Box Claims *Comment 3:* Agricultural Income Disaster Assistance Program Recurring vs. Nonrecurring *Comment 4:* Quebec Farm Income Stabilization Insurance/Agricultural Revenue Stabilization Insurance Program *Comment 5:* Saskatchewan Short-Term Hog Loan Program *Comment 6:* Saskatchewan Livestock and Horticultural Facilities Incentives Program [FR Doc. E5-1030 Filed 3-10-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Docket No. 970424097-5061-08] Market Development Cooperator Program

(MDCP)AGENCY: International Trade Administration (ITA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: ITA is soliciting U.S. export promotion projects to be conducted by eligible entities for periods of up to three years. Project award periods normally begin between October 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006, but may begin as late as April 1, 2006. MDCP awards help to underwrite the start-up costs of new export ventures that export multipliers are often reluctant to undertake without Federal Government support. MDCP aims to develop, maintain and expand foreign markets for non-agricultural goods and services produced in the United States. DATES: Proposals must be received by ITA no later than 5 p.m. EST, April 25, 2005. A public meeting to discuss the competition will be held on March 18, 2005, at 2 p.m. in Room 6059 at the address indicated below. ADDRESSES: Proposals must be submitted to ITA, U.S. Department of Commerce, HCHB 3215; Washington, DC 20230, or via e-mail to *MDCPMail@ita.doc.gov* . The full funding opportunity announcement and the application kit for this request for applications are available at *http://www.export.gov/mdcp* , or by contacting Brad Hess at 202-482-2969. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interested parties who are unable to access information via Internet or who have questions may contact Mr. Brad Hess by mail (see ADDRESSES ), by phone at 202-482-2969, by fax at 202-482-4462, or via Internet at *Brad_Hess@ita.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Electronic Access:* The full funding opportunity announcement for MDCP is available at *http://www.export.gov/mdcp.* *Funding Availability:* Approximately $2,000,000 will be available through this announcement for fiscal year 2005. Awards are limited to $400,000 each. ITA anticipates making five to nine awards, depending on the amounts requested and the availability of funds. Statutory Authority: 15 U.S.C. 4723. *CFDA:* 11.112, Market Development Cooperator Program. *Eligibility:* Trade associations, state departments of trade and their regional associations, and non-profit industry organizations, including export multiplier organizations such as World Trade Centers, centers for international trade development and small business development centers are eligible to apply for an MDCP award. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* Two dollars for every federal dollar. The first dollar must be cash. The rest of the match may be cash or in kind. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of federal programs.” *Evaluation and Selection Procedures:* After receiving the applications, ITA will screen each one to determine the applicant's eligibility to receive an award. After receiving all applications, a selection panel composed of ITA managers will review the applications using the evaluation criteria below, score them, and forward a ranked funding recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services. The Assistant Secretary makes the final selection of award winners, justifying any deviation from the selection panel's ranked recommendation. *Evaluation Criteria:* The selection panel reviews each eligible application based on five evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria scores assigned by the panel determine which applications are recommended for funding. The evaluation criteria are listed below.

(1)Export Success Potential (20%). This is the potential of the project to generate export success stories and/or export initiatives in both the short-term and medium-term.

(2)Performance Measures (20%). Applicants must provide quantifiable estimates of how the project will increase or enhance the U.S. industry's export presence in the foreign market(s).

(3)Partnership and Priorities (20%). This criterion indicates the degree to which the project initiates or enhances partnership with ITA and the degree to which the proposal furthers or is compatible with ITA's priorities.

(4)Creativity and Capacity (20%). Applicants demonstrate creativity, innovation, and realism in the project work plan as well as their institutional capacity to carry out the work plan.

(5)Budget and Sustainability (20%). This criterion indicates the reasonableness and effectiveness of the itemized budget for project activities, the amount of the cash match that is readily available, and the probability that the project can be continued on a self-sustained basis after the completion of the award. The five criteria together constitute the application score. At 20 points per criterion, the total possible score is 100. *Selection Factors:* The Assistant Secretary may deviate from the selection panel's ranked recommendation only based on the following factors:

(1)Scores of individual selection panel members and the selection panel's written assessments,

(2)Degree to which applications satisfy ITA priorities,

(3)Geographic distribution of the proposed awards,

(4)Diversity of industry sectors and overseas markets covered by the proposed awards,

(5)Diversity of project activities represented by the proposed awards,

(6)Avoidance of redundancy and conflicts with the initiatives of other federal agencies, and

(7)Availability of funds. The ITA priorities referred to under Evaluation Criteria

(3)and Selection Factor

(2)are listed below. ITA is interested in receiving proposals to promote U.S. exports that include, but are not limited to, projects that:

(1)Improve the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and service industries by addressing impediments to innovation and cost reduction;

(2)Increase competitiveness of U.S. industries by addressing non-tariff barriers, especially those related to standards;

(3)Capitalize on trade opportunities resulting from trade agreements;

(4)Increase overall export awareness and awareness of ITA programs and services among U.S. companies, by making SMEs export-ready or by facilitating deal-making;

(5)Ensure compliance with trade agreements;

(6)Increase the competitiveness of U.S. industries by developing commercial infrastructure in emerging economies;

(7)Develop non-traditional approaches to creating demand for the products/services developed from new U.S. technologies; and

(8)Support the Administration's broader foreign policy objectives through trade-related initiatives. The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) are applicable to this solicitation. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424 and 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 has been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for this notice concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Dated: March 7, 2005. Robert W. Pearson, Director, Office of Planning, Coordination and Management, Manufacturing and Services, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E5-1026 Filed 3-10-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Business Development Mission Afghanistan AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice to business development mission to Afghanistan, April 24-27, 2005. SUMMARY: The International Trade Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce is organizing a business development mission to Afghanistan on April 24-27, 2005. The mission will assist U.S. businesses exploring trade and investment opportunities in Afghanistan. A senior U.S. Department of Commerce official will lead a delegation of approximately 10 to 15 U.S.-based senior executives of small, medium, and large U.S. firms. Companies may represent, but are not limited to, the following priority sectors: construction, telecommunications, agribusiness, energy, and financial services. The mission will include briefings from U.S. Embassy staff and Afghan Government officials, prearranged one-on-one meetings, and a networking reception. The mission will reaffirm the U.S. Government's support towards bilateral relations and seek to expand opportunities for U.S. companies in Afghanistan. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Global Trade Programs, Room 2012, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; Tel:

(202)482-4457; Fax:

(202)482-0178. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Business Development Mission, Afghanistan; April 24-27, 2005. Mission Statement I. Description of the Mission The International Trade Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce is organizing a business development mission to Afghanistan on April 24-27, 2005. The mission will assist U.S. businesses exploring trade and investment opportunities in Afghanistan. A senior U.S. Department of Commerce official will lead a delegation of approximately 10 to 15 U.S.-based senior executives of small, medium, and large U.S. firms. Companies may represent, but are not limited to, the following priority sectors: construction, telecommunications, agribusiness, energy, and financial services. The mission will include briefings from U.S. Embassy staff and Afghan Government officials, prearranged one-on-one meetings, and a networking reception. The mission will reaffirm the U.S. Government's support towards bilateral relations and seek to expand opportunities for U.S. companies in Afghanistan. II. Commercial Setting for the Mission Since the Taliban's fall from power in late 2001, Afghanistan is undergoing a transformation thanks to the United States and the international community. The Afghan Government seeks to revive the economy in order to improve the lives of Afghans, create jobs, attract foreign investment, and earn desperately needed hard currency. The agricultural, energy, housing, light industries and trading sectors present significant needs for development. Although economic statistics on Afghanistan may not be reliable, the International Monetary Fund reports the gross domestic product

(GDP)is estimated at $4.4 billion, and GDP per capita is about $250 per year. The estimated GDP growth rate for 2003-2004 was 16%, following a growth rate of 20% for 2002-2003. Economic recovery from more than twenty war-ravaged years is most visible in agriculture, construction and services sectors, driven by the international reconstruction effort. The Afghan Government is taking many steps to build the mechanisms necessary for a viable commercial environment. The Afghan Government passed new investment and commercial banking laws to facilitate commercial and banking transactions. The Afghan Government created a “one-stop shop” for investors to receive necessary documents and other information for establishing a business venture in Afghanistan. With assistance from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Ministry of Finance has embarked on an aggressive strategy to simplify and improve customs and border procedures to further facilitate trade between Afghanistan and the world. The Afghan Government is also working with the international community to reform the judicial system. The basic business infrastructure, including telecommunications, commercial regulations and office support, is slowly improving. Given the tenuous security situation throughout the country, there is a shortage of insurance options for transporters and investors. The first of three industrial parks is scheduled to open in the Spring 2005. U.S. Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary William H. Lash, III visited Kabul in August 2004. He was encouraged to see the progress in reconstruction, the potential for U.S. companies, and the entrepreneurial spirit of the Afghans. It is for this reason the mission is being planned. III. Goals for the Mission The mission aims to further U.S. commercial policy objectives and to advance specific U.S. business interests. The mission will • Assess the commercial climate as well as export and investment opportunities in Afghanistan; • Advance mission participants' specific business interests by introducing them to key Afghan government officials and potential business partners; • Encourage continued progress in economic development in Afghanistan; and Enhance the dialogue between government and industry on issues affecting the development of bilateral commercial relations. IV. Scenario for the Mission The business development mission will expose participants to high-level contacts and provide access to the Afghan market. U.S. Embassy officials will provide a detailed briefing on the economic, commercial and political climate as well as current investment and reconstruction opportunities. Meetings will be arranged with appropriate government ministries, including the Afghan Investment Support Agency, the Ministries of Commerce, and Foreign Affairs, as well as sectoral ministries. In addition to private sector representatives, U.S. Government economic agencies may also participate. Timetable The precise schedule will depend on the availability of local government and business officials and the specific goals of the mission participants. The tentative trip itinerary will be as follows: *Sunday, April 24, 2005:* Arrive in Kabul; Overview; Briefing by U.S. Embassy. *Monday, April 25, 2005:* Briefings by: Afghanistan Investment Support Agency/Ministry of Commerce; U.S. Agency for International Development and possible prime contractors; Ministry of Finance; Ministry of Foreign Affairs; One-on-one meetings with sectoral ministries. *Tuesday, April 26, 2005:* Meetings with Afghan businesses, Afghan-American Chamber of Commerce, and Afghanistan International Chamber of Commerce; One-on-one meetings with sectoral ministries. *Wednesday, April 27, 2005:* Briefings by: World Bank representatives; Asian Development Bank representatives. Depart Kabul. V. Criteria for Participant Selection The recruitment and selection of private sector participants for this mission will be conducted according to the “Statement of Policy Governing Department of Commerce-Overseas Trade Missions” established in March 1997. Approximately 10 to 15 companies will be selected for the mission according to the criteria set out below. *Eligibility:* Participating companies must be incorporated or otherwise organized in the United States. A company is eligible to participate if the products and/or services that it will promote

(a)are manufactured or produced in the United States; or

(b)if manufactured or produced outside the United States, are marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content of the value of the finished good or service. *Selection Criteria:* Companies will be selected for participation in the mission on the basis of • Consistency of company's goals with the scope and desired outcome of the mission; • Relevance of a company's business and product line to the identified growth sectors; • Rank of the designated company representative; • Past, present, or prospective relevant international business activity; • Diversity of company size, type, location, demographics, and traditional under-representation in business; and • Timely receipt of the company's signed and completed application, participation agreement, and participation fee. Recruitment will begin immediately and will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the **Federal Register** , posting on the Commerce Department trade missions calendar ( *http://www.ita.doc.gov/doctm/tmcal.html* ), the Afghanistan Investment and Reconstruction Task Force Web site ( *http://www.export.gov/afghanistan* ), and press releases to the general and trade media. Promotion of the mission will also take place through the involvement of U.S. Export Assistance Centers and relevant trade associations. An applicant's partisan, political activities (including political contribution) are entirely irrelevant to the selection process. The fee to participate in this mission has not yet been determined, but will be approximately USD 1,500. The fees will not cover travel expenses and lodging. Recruitment begins immediately and will close on March 31, 2005, in order to ensure sufficient time to obtain in-country appointments for applicants selected to participate in the mission. Applications received after that date will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. The mission Web site ( *http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/events* ) will share information as it becomes available. *Disclaimer:* Trade mission participants participate in the trade mission and undertake related travel at their own risk and are advised to obtain insurance accordingly. Any question regarding insurance coverage must be resolved by the participant and its insurer of choice. Trade mission participants and their companies, on behalf of themselves and any of their respective officers, employees or agents, agree to release, indemnify and hold harmless the U.S. Government from liability for any illness, injury, loss of life, or damage or loss of property, suffered by themselves or their respective officers, employees or agents, occasioned by or connected with participation in the trade mission. The U.S. Government does not make any representations or guarantees as to the safety or security of participants. Companies should consult the State Department's travel warning for Afghanistan: *http://travel.state.gov/travel/afghanistan_warning.html.* The U.S. Government does not make any representations or guarantees as to the success of the trade mission. *Contact Information:* Jana Nelhybel, Afghanistan Investment and Reconstruction Task Force, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Tel:

(202)482-1812. Fax:

(202)482-0980. E-mail: *AfghanInfo@ita.doc.gov.* Dated: March 7, 2005. Peter Hale, Director, Office of Policy Coordination. [FR Doc. E5-1024 Filed 3-10-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket No.: 050301051-5051-01] NIST Center for Neutron Research Financial Assistance Program; Availability of Funds AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)announces that the NIST Center for Neutron Research

(NCNR)Financial Assistance Program is soliciting applications for financial assistance for FY 2005. The *NCNR Financial Assistance Program* will offer financial assistance in the field of Neutron Research and Spectroscopy specifically aimed at developing new instrumentation for Neutron Research, conducting collaborative research with NIST scientists, and assisting visiting researchers at the NCNR. DATES: All applications, paper and electronic, must be received at the address listed below no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on April 1, 2005. Late applications will not be reviewed nor considered. ADDRESSES: Paper applications must be submitted to: Kim Stavish, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Center for Neutron Research, STOP 8560, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8560, phone

(301)975-2672. Electronic applications and associated proposal information should be uploaded to *http://grants.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notice at *http://www.grants.gov.* A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Technical questions should be addressed to: Dr. Dan Neumann, at NCNR, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8562, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8562, or at Tel:

(301)975-5252; E-mail: *Dan.Neumann@nist.gov.* Grants Administration questions should be addressed to: Joyce Brigham, NIST Grants and Agreements Management Division; Tel:

(301)975-6328; *joyce.brigham@nist.gov.* For assistance with using *http://grants.gov contact support@grants.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number:* Measurement and Engineering Research and Standards—11.609. *Program Description:* The primary program objectives of the financial assistance program in Neutron Research are to develop new areas of neutron instrumentation with emphasis on cold neutrons; to explore and develop new areas of neutron scattering science, with emphasis on macromolecular science, condensed matter physics, and chemistry; to assist and train facility users in their research; and to conduct other outreach and educational activities that advance the use of neutrons by U.S. university and industrial scientists. This will entail stationing scientific staff at the NCNR who, in collaboration with NIST and visiting scientists, advance these objectives. *Funding Availability:* Proposals will be considered for cooperative agreements with durations of up to five years, subject to the availability of funds, satisfactory progress, and the continuing relevance to the objectives of the NIST Center for Neutron Research. The anticipated level of funding is up to $3,500,000 per year and one or more awards may be approved. Between one and five awards are likely. NIST will give preference to full-scope proposals. However applicants may choose to submit proposals covering full or partial amounts of the funding available. Partial funding proposals may be limited to specific program objectives. NIST will determine whether to fund one award for the full amount; to divide available funds into multiple awards of any size, and negotiate scopes of work and budgets as appropriate; or not to select any proposal for funding, upon completing the selection process described below. Statutory Authority: 15 U.S.C. 272 (b)(4,7) and (c)(8,10,16,17,19). *Eligibility:* The NCNR Financial Assistance Program is open to U.S. institutions of higher education. *Review and Selection Process:* All applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated program objectives. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. Responsive proposals will be reviewed by an independent, objective panel composed of at least four individuals who are knowledgeable about neutron scattering research, neutron spectroscopy, and neutron scattering instrumentation. This panel will conduct a technical review of proposals based on the evaluation criteria listed above. If non-Federal reviewers are used, any advice provided will be on an individual basis, not as a consensus. The NCNR Director, serving as the Selection Official, will make the award selection. In making the award selection, the NCNR Director will take into consideration the panels' technical evaluation. The NCNR Director, as the selecting official, may choose a proposal out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors:

(1)Availability of funds,

(2)redundancy,

(3)balance/distribution of funds by research areas described above in the Program description of this Notice,

(4)program objectives described above in the Program Description section of this Notice,

(5)logistical concerns, and

(6)preference for full-scope proposals. If an award is made to an applicant that deviates from the scores of the reviewers, the NCNR Director shall justify the selection in writing based on selection factors described above. The NCNR Director may select all, none, or some of the applications for funding. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The award decision of the Grants Officer is final. Applicants should allow up to 90 days processing time. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Evaluation Criteria:* For the NCNR Financial Assistance Program, the technical reviewers will use the following criteria to evaluate the proposals: 1. Qualifications and experience of the Principle Investigator in neutron scattering research, as demonstrated by extensive publications and invited lectures in condensed matter physics, chemistry, material science, macromolecular science or related fields (10%). 2. Qualifications and experience of the proposed university staff in neutron scattering research or in related scientific or engineering areas that are key to the activities contained in the proposal, as demonstrated by resumes of staff proposed for this program (25%). 3. Quality of the proposed research and development plan and its potential impact on neutron scattering science, particularly in the areas of macromolecular science, condensed matter physics, and chemistry (20%). 4. Quality of the plan in terms of providing research assistance to U.S. neutron researchers using the NCNR facilities, including related training, education, and outreach (30%). 5. Quality of the plan to integrate university staff effectively into the activities of the NCNR facility, including establishing robust communications between the university and the NCNR (10%). 6. Cost effectiveness of the plan (5%). *Cost Share Requirements:* There is no cost sharing nor matching requirement for this program. *The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements:* The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) is applicable to this announcement. On the form SF-424, the applicant's 9-digit Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number must be entered in the Applicant Identifier block (68 FR 38402). *Collaborations with NIST Employees:* All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed by an entity other than the applicant, and the cost of such work should ordinarily be included in the budget. If an applicant proposes collaboration with NIST, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention, a description of the collaboration, and prominently identify the NIST employee(s) involved, if known. Any collaboration by a NIST employee must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the approval of the proposed collaboration. Any unapproved collaboration will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review. *Use of NIST Intellectual Property:* If the applicant anticipates using any NIST-owned intellectual property to carry out the work proposed, the applicant should identify such intellectual property. This information will be used to ensure that no NIST employee involved in the development of the intellectual property will participate in the review process for that competition. In addition, if the applicant intends to use NIST-owned intellectual property, the applicant must comply with all statutes and regulations governing the licensing of Federal government patents and inventions, described at 35 U.S.C. sec. 200-212, 37 CFR part 401, 15 CFR 14.36, and in section 20 of the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements, 69 FR 78389 (December 30, 2004). Questions about these requirements may be directed to the Counsel for NIST, 301-975-2803. Any use of NIST-owned intellectual property by a proposer is at the sole discretion of NIST and will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a project is deemed meritorious. The applicant should indicate within the statement of work whether it already has a license to use such intellectual property or whether it intends to seek one. If any inventions made in whole or in part by a NIST employee arise in the course of an award made pursuant to this notice, the United States government may retain its ownership rights in any such invention. Licensing or other disposition of NIST's rights in such inventions will be determined solely by NIST, and include the possibility of NIST putting the intellectual property into the public domain. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* The standard forms in the application kit involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. *Research Projects Involving Human Subjects, Human Tissue, Data or Recordings Involving Human Subjects:* Any proposal that includes research involving human subjects, human tissue, data or recordings involving human subjects must meet the requirements of the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects, codified for the Department of Commerce at 15 CFR part 27. In addition, any proposal that includes research on these topics must be in compliance with any statutory requirements imposed upon the Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS)and other Federal agencies regarding these topics, all regulatory policies and guidance adopted by DHHS, FDA, and other Federal agencies on these topics, and all Presidential statements of policy on these topics. On December 3, 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS)introduced a new Federal-wide Assurance of Protection of Human Subjects (FWA). The FWA covers all of an institution's Federally supported human subjects research, and eliminates the need for other types of Assurance documents. The Office for Human Research Protections

(OHRP)has suspended processing of multiple project assurance

(MPA)renewals. All existing MPAs will remain in force until further notice. For information about FWAs, please see the OHRP Web site at *http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/assurance/fwas.htm* . In accordance with the DHHS change, NIST will continue to accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by Institutional Review Boards

(IRBs)possessing a current, valid MPA from DHHS. NIST also will accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by IRBs possessing a current, valid FWA from DHHS. NIST will not issue a single project assurance

(SPA)for any IRB reviewing any human subjects protocol proposed to NIST. On August 9, 2001, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement

(1)the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and

(2)the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being. NIST will follow guidance issued by the National Institutes of Health at *http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/stemcell.pdf* for funding such research. *Research Projects Involving Vertebrate Animals:* Any proposal that includes research involving vertebrate animals must be in compliance with the National Research Council's “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” which can be obtained from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20055. In addition, such proposals must meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 *et seq.* ), 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3, and if appropriate, 21 CFR part 58. These regulations do not apply to proposed research using pre-existing images of animals or to research plans that do not include live animals that are being cared for, euthanized, or used by the project participants to accomplish research goals, teaching, or testing. These regulations also do not apply to obtaining animal materials from commercial processors of animal products or to animal cell lines or tissues from tissue banks. *Limitation of Liability:* In no event will the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige the agency to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. *Executive Order 12866:* This funding notice was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. *Executive Order 13132 (Federalism):* It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12372:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” *Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act:* Notice and comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553 (a)). Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for notices relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* Dated: March 3, 2005. Hratch G. Semerjian, Acting Director, NIST. [FR Doc. 05-4847 Filed 3-10-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

CFR