Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Notices 5835

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they will also become a matter of public 

record.

Dated: February 3, 2004. 

Madeleine Clayton, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–2627 Filed 2–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–863] 

Honey From the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of New Shipper 

Antidumping Duty Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Initiation of new shipper 

antidumping duty reviews. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shireen Pasha or Brandon Farlander at 

(202) 482–0913 or (202) 482–0182, 

respectively; Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group 

III, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department received timely 

requests from the following companies: 

Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., 

Ltd. (Anhui Honghui), Eurasia Bee’s 

Products Co., Ltd. (Eurasia), Foodworld 

International Club Limited (Foodworld), 

Inner Mongolia Youth Trade 

Development Co., Ltd. (Inner Mongolia 

Youth), Jiangsu Kanghong Natural 

Healthfoods Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu 

Kanghong), and Shanghai Shinomiel 

International Trade Corporation 

(Shanghai Shinomiel), in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for new shipper 

reviews of the antidumping duty order 

on honey from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC), which has a December 

annual anniversary month and a June 

semiannual anniversary month. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from 

the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 

63670 (December 10, 2001). Anhui 

Honghui identified itself as both the 

exporter and producer of the subject 

merchandise. Eurasia identified itself as 

the exporter and producer of the subject 

merchandise, as well as the exporter of 

subject merchandise produced by its 

supplier Chuzhou Huadi Foodstuffs Co., 

Ltd. (Chuzhou). Foodworld identified 

itself as the exporter of honey produced 

by its producer Anhui Tianxin Bee 

Products Co., Ltd. (Anhui Tianxin). 

Inner Mongolia Youth identified itself 

as the exporter of the subject 

merchandise produced by Qinhuangdao 

Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co. Ltd. 

(Qinhuangdao). Jiangsu Kanghong 

identified itself as both the exporter and 

producer of the subject merchandise. 

Shanghai Shinomiel identified itself as 

the exporter of subject merchandise 

produced by Hangzhou Green Forever 

Apiculture Co. (Hangzhou Green), and 

Hubei Yangzijian Apiculture Co. (Hubei 

Yangzijian). 

As required by 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii)(A), Anhui 

Honghui, Eurasia, Foodworld, Inner 

Mongolia, Jiangsu Kanghong, and 

Shanghai Shinomiel certified that they 

did not export honey to the United 

States during the period of investigation 

(POI), and that they have never been 

affiliated with any exporter or producer 

which exported honey during the POI. 

Furthermore, Anhui Honghui, Eurasia, 

Foodworld, Inner Mongolia, Jiangsu 

Kanghong, and Shanghai Shinomiel 

certified that their export activities are 

not controlled by the central 

government of the PRC, satisfying the 

requirements of 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to the 

Department’s regulations at 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv), Anhui Honghui, 

Eurasia, Inner Mongolia, Jiangsu 

Kanghong, and Shanghai Shinomiel 

submitted documentation establishing 

the date on which the subject 

merchandise was first entered for 

consumption in the United States, the 

volume of that first shipment, and the 

date of the first sale to an unaffiliated 

customer in the United States. We note 

that Foodworld only submitted the 

volume and date of the first sale to an 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States, and did not submit 

documentation establishing the date the 

merchandise was first entered for 

consumption in the United States. 

Moreover, Shanghai Shinomiel 

indicated in its new shipper review 

request that both of its suppliers (Hubei 

Yangzijian and Hangzhou Green 

Forever) had also previously supplied 

an exporter that exported subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the period of investigation and 

subsequently. 

On December 19, 2003, the 

Department issued pre-initiation 

supplemental questionnaires to all 

companies to clarify company 

information submitted in their requests 

to the Department for new shipper 

reviews. We received supplemental 

questionnaire responses from each 

company. In Foodworld’s supplemental 

questionnaire response, dated December 

31, 2003, Foodworld indicated that its 

shipment had not entered the United 

States during the POR, but that it was 

expected to arrive in the United States 

before the end of the year, and that the 

official date of entry would likely be in 

January 2004. Further, Foodworld 

indicated that it would submit a copy of 

the Customs Form 7501 when it became 

available. As of January 30, 2004, 

Foodworld had not submitted to the 

Department a copy of the Customs Form 

7501 for this shipment. 

The Department conducted multiple 

Customs run queries in December 2003 

and January 2004 to determine whether 

Foodworld’s shipment had officially 

entered the United States via 

assignment of an entry date in the 

Customs database by the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP). We also 

made multiple phone calls to CBP, 

including a phone call on January 30, 

2004, to inquire whether this shipment 

had entered the United States. As of 

January 30, 2004, and based on available 

information on the record, it appears 

that Foodworld’s shipment did not enter 

the United States for consumption 

during the POR, nor has it entered by 

the initiation date, which is 60 days 

after the end of the POR. See 

Memoranda to the File through Richard 

O. Weible, ‘‘New Shipper Review 

Initiation Checklist,’’ dated January 30, 

2004, for Foodworld. 

Scope 

The merchandise under review is 

honey from the PRC. The products 

covered are natural honey, artificial 

honey containing more than 50 percent 

natural honey by weight, preparations of 

natural honey containing more than 50 

percent natural honey by weight, and 

flavored honey. The subject 

merchandise includes all grades and 

colors of honey whether in liquid, 

creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk 

form, and whether packaged for retail or 

in bulk form. The merchandise under 

review is currently classifiable under 

item 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 

2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

5836 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Notices 

1We note that Anhui Honghui, Eurasia, Inner 

Mongolia, and Jiangsu Kanghong requested 

administrative reviews, in addition to the new 

shipper reviews. If for any reason the Department 

rescinds any of the aforementioned companies’ new 

shipper reviews, we will then include any such 

company in the administrative review.

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under review is 

dispositive. 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as amended, and 

19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on 

information on the record, we are 

initiating new shipper reviews for 

Anhui Honghui, Eurasia, Inner 

Mongolia, and Jiangsu Kanghong. See 

Memoranda to the File through Richard 

O. Weible, ‘‘New Shipper Review 

Initiation Checklist,’’ dated January 30, 

2004, for each respective company. We 

intend to issue the preliminary results 

of these reviews not later than 180 days 

after the date on which these reviews 

were initiated, and the final results of 

these reviews within 90 days after the 

date on which the preliminary results 

were issued.

The Department is not initiating new 

shipper reviews for the remaining two 

companies (i.e., Foodworld and 

Shanghai Shinomiel). With regard to 

Foodworld, as noted above, 

Foodworld’s shipment did not enter the 

United States during the POR. Under 

section 351.214(f)(2)(ii) of the 

Department’s regulations, when the sale 

of the subject merchandise occurs 

within the POR, but the entry occurs 

after the normal POR, the POR may be 

extended unless it would be likely to 

prevent the completion of the review 

within the time limits set by the 

Department’s regulations. While the 

regulations do not provide a definitive 

date by which the entry must occur, the 

preamble to the Department’s 

regulations state that both the entry and 

the sale should occur during the POR, 

and that only under ‘‘appropriate’’

circumstances should the POR be 

extended when the entry is made after 

the POR. See Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27319 (May 19, 1997). In this 

instance, Foodworld’s shipment has not 

entered by the date of initiation. 

Accordingly, we are not initiating the 

new shipper review request for 

Foodworld for the period December 1, 

2002 through November 30, 2003. For 

further information, see the Letter to 

Foodworld from Richard O. Weible,

dated January 30, 2004. See Memoranda 

to the File through Richard O. Weible, 

‘‘New Shipper Review Initiation 

Checklist,’’ dated January 30, 2004, for 

Foodworld. We note that an 

administrative review was requested for 

Foodworld. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Request for 

Revocation in Part, 69 FR 3117 (January 

22, 2004). 

With regard to Shanghai Shinomiel, 

we note that both of its suppliers 

(Hangzhou Green Forever and Hubei 

Yangzijian) previously supplied subject 

merchandise to an exporter during the 

original investigation, which was 

subsequently exported to the United 

States. Moreover, the Department 

examined the factors of production data 

for both of Shanghai Shinomiel’s 

suppliers in the original investigation. 

For further information, see the Letter to 

Shanghai Shinomiel from Richard O. 

Weible, dated January 30, 2004. See 

Memoranda to File through Richard O. 

Weible, ‘‘New Shipper Review Initiation 

Checklist,’’ dated January 30, 2004. 

Based on these facts, we determine 

that Shanghai Shinomiel is not a new 

shipper within the meaning of Section 

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, and section 

351.214 of the Department’s regulations. 

Because Shanghai Shinomiel’s two 

suppliers had established a chain of 

distribution for exporting their subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI, Shanghai Shinomiel may not 

claim new shipper status for 

merchandise supplied by these same 

two suppliers. We note that this 

decision is consistent with our 

established practice of limiting the 

benefits of new shipper reviews to 

particular producer/exporter 

combinations. See Import 

Administration Policy Bulletin 03.2—

Combination Rates in New Shipper 

Reviews (March 4, 2003). We note also 

that an administrative review was 

requested for Shanghai Shinomiel. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 69 FR 3117 (January 22, 2004). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A) 

of the Department’s regulations, the 

period of review (POR) for a new 

shipper review initiated in the month 

immediately following the anniversary 

month will be the twelve-month period 

immediately preceding the anniversary 

month. Therefore, the POR for these 

new shipper reviews is:

Antidumping duty proceeding Period to be reviewed 

Exporter: Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd. .......................................................................................................

Producer: Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................... 12/01/02–11/30/03

Exporter: Eurasia Bee’s Products Co., Ltd. ......................................................................................................................

Producer: Eurasia Bee’s Products Co., Ltd. .....................................................................................................................

Producer: Chuzhou Huadi Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................ 12/01/02–11/30/03

Exporter: Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd. .........................................................................................

Producer: Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd. ......................................................................................... 12/01/02–11/30/03

Exporter: Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd. .............................................................................................

Producer: Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................ 12/01/02–11/30/03

It is the Department’s usual practice 

in cases involving non-market 

economies to require that a company 

seeking to establish eligibility for an 

antidumping duty rate separate from the 

country-wide rate to provide evidence 

of de jure and de facto absence of 

government control over the company’s 

export activities. Accordingly, we will 

issue questionnaires to Anhui Honghui, 

Eurasia, Inner Mongolia, and Jiangsu 

Kanghong, including a separate rates 

section. The review will proceed if the 

responses provide sufficient indication 

that Anhui Honghui, Eurasia, Inner 

Mongolia, and Jiangsu Kanghong are not 

subject to either de jure or de facto

government control with respect to their 

exports of honey. However, if Anhui 

Honghui, Eurasia, Inner Mongolia, and 

Jiangsu Kanghong do not demonstrate 

their eligibility for a separate rate, then 

they will be deemed not separate from 

other companies that exported during 

the POI and the new shipper review of 

that respondent will be rescinded.1

In accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(e), we will instruct the U.S. 

Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection (BCBP) to allow, at the option 

of the importer, the posting, until the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Notices 5837

completion of the review, of a single 

entry bond or security in lieu of a cash 

deposit for certain entries of the 

merchandise exported by the abovelisted companies, e.g.: Exporter Anhui 

Honghui certified that it produced and 

exported the subject merchandise for 

the sale under review; thus, we will 

instruct Customs to limit Anhui 

Honghui’s bonding option only to 

entries of such merchandise for which 

it is both the producer and exporter. 

Exporter Eurasia certified itself and 

Chuzhou as the producer of subject 

merchandise for the sale under review; 

thus, we will instruct Customs to limit 

the bonding option only to entries of 

subject merchandise exported by 

Eurasia and produced either by Eurasia 

or Chuzhou. Exporter Inner Mongolia 

Youth certified Qinhuangdao as the 

producer of subject merchandise; thus, 

we will limit the bonding option to 

entries of subject merchandise produced 

by Qinhuangdao and exported by Inner 

Mongolia Youth. Exporter Jiangsu 

Kanghong certified that it produced and 

exported the subject merchandise; thus, 

we will instruct Customs to limit 

Jiangsu Kanghong’s bonding option only 

to entries of subject merchandise for 

which it is both the producer and 

exporter. 

Interested parties that need access to 

proprietary information in these new 

shipper reviews should submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective orders in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 

351.306. This initiation and notice are 

in accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 

351.214(d).

Dated: January 30, 2004. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Group III.

[FR Doc. 04–2630 Filed 2–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

[ID. 012904A]

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in 

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery; Application for an 

Exempted Fishing Permit

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of the Receipt an 

exempted fishing permit application, 

announcement of the intent to issue the 

EFP, request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the receipt 

of an exempted fishing permit (EFP) 

application from the Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). If 

awarded, this EFP will allow qualifying 

vessels to harvest and retain federally 

managed groundfish in excess of 

cumulative trip limits. This is otherwise 

prohibited. Vessels fishing under this 

EFP will be required to carry a federal 

fisheries observer during all EFP fishing. 

This EFP proposal is intended to 

promote the objectives of the Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) by assessing the 

effectiveness of a new discard reduction 

strategy for the trawl fishery.

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 23, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the EFP 

application are available from Becky 

Renko Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 

Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, 

WA 98115–0070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Becky Renko (206)526–6150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

action is authorized by the FMP and 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

600.745 and 50 CFR 660.350.

Dover sole, shortspine thornyhead, 

longspine thornyhead, and sablefish 

(DTS complex) are abundant and 

important upper continental slope 

species in the Pacific Coast groundfish 

fishery. Reductions in cumulative catch 

limits (trip limits) for the DTS complex 

in recent years have created strong 

incentives for vessels to high-grade their 

catch (keep only the most valuable fish) 

to maximize its value. In addition, 

differences between trip limits for the 

different DTS species may not 

accurately reflect the true ratios of the 

species that actually occur in the catch 

of the individual vessels. This could 

result in one species being discarded, 

because the trp limits of that species 

have been reached, while the vessel 

continues to fish for another species in 

the DTS complex. When the trip limits 

are reduced or when the ratios between 

species do not reflect what is actually 

harvested very high levels of discarded 

catch can result. An experimental 

research project conducted by ODFW in 

2003 suggests that discarded catch 

levels can be reduced by redefining 

market categories and the associated 

price structure.

The purpose of the proposed 

exempted fishing activity is to collect 

data that can be used to examine the 

feasability of using a new discardreduction strategy as a management tool 

for the DTS complex trawl fishery. 

Written agreements between the vessel, 

processors and the State of Oregon will 

be used to redefine existing market 

categories for the DTS species; to create 

an EFP price for each redefined category 

of marketable DTS species; and to 

require the full retention of all 

marketable Dover sole and sablefish and 

all rockfish (Sebastes and Sebastolobus). 

Modest economic benefits to the 

participating vessels and processors are 

anticipated. If this EFP is successful, 

these benefits are expected to create an 

economic incentive that will encourage 

further development of this discard 

reduction approach.

Three vessels from three different 

ports along the Oregon coast will be 

used to fish under this EFP. The EFP 

fishing will occur from March to June 

2004. Because this EFP applies to 

vessels using large footrope trawl gear, 

all depth restrictions and cumulative 

limits restrictions specific to the use of 

large footrope trawl gear as announced 

in the Federal Register will apply to the 

EFP fishing. Vessels will be required to 

all marketable Dover sole and sablefish 

and all rockfish (including 

thornyheads). The proceeds from the 

sale of DTS species in excess of the EFP 

limits and non-DTS species that are 

retained in excess of cumulative trip 

limits as published in the Federal 

Register will be forfeited to the state of 

Oregon.

During the effective dates of the EFP, 

participating vessels must carry a 

federal fisheries observer whenever they 

fish under the EFP. Observers will 

collect data from which the composition 

of discarded and landed catch can be 

estimated and they will assure that all 

rockfish are being retained by the 

participating vessel.

The total amount (discard plus 

retained) of Dover sole allowed to be 

taken under this EFP is not expected to 

exceed 125 metric tons(mt), the total 

amount (discard plus retained) of 

shortspine thornyhead allowed to be 

taken under this EFP is not expected to 

exceed 122 mt. The total amount 

(discard plus retained) of longspine 

thornyhead allowed to be taken under 

this EFP is not expected to exceed 63 mt 

and the total amount (discard plus 

retained) of sablefish taken under this 

permit is not expected to exceed 367 mt.

The EFP fishing will be constrained 

by the following EFP limits for 

overfished species: yelloweye rockfish 

1.2 mt, canary rockfish 0.1 mt, lingcod 

0.2 mt, widow rockfish 0 mt, Pacific 

whiting 145 mt, darkblotch rockfish 6.0 

mt, and POP 23 mt. If the total catch of 

any one of these species reaches the EFP