Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40609

1The petitioners are the Coalition for Fair

Preserved Mushroom Trade which includes the

American Mushroom Institute and the following

domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc.,

Nottingham, PA; Modern Mushrooms Farms, Inc.,

Toughkernamon, PA; Monterrey Mushrooms, Inc.,

Watsonville, CA; Mount Laurel Canning Corp.,

Temple, PA; Mushrooms Canning Company,

Kennett Square, PA; Southwood Farms, Hockessin,

DE; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., Oxford, PA; United

Canning Corp., North Lima, OH.

2Because of an affirmative critical circumstance

finding, liquidation was suspended 90 days prior to

publication of the preliminary less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation for these companies.

Multipurpose Room, 11th Floor, One

Port Center, Two River Drive, Camden,

New Jersey has been canceled.

The original notice for the meeting

was announced in the Federal Register

on Thursday, June 1, 2000, FR Doc. 00–

13677, 65 FR, No. 106, p. 35045.

Persons desiring additional

information should contact Edward

Darden, of the Eastern Regional Office,

202–376–7533 (TDD 202–376–8116).

Dated at Washington, DC, June 27, 2000.

Lisa M. Kelly,

Special Assistant to the Staff Director

Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 00–16599 Filed 6–27–00; 2:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–851]

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review for Two

Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain

Preserved Mushrooms From the

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a timely

request from two manufacturer/

exporters and the petitioners, 1 on

March 30, 2000, the Department of

Commerce published a notice of

initiation of an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

preserved mushrooms from the People’s

Republic of China with respect to China

Processed Food Import & Export Co.,

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd., Mei

Wei Food Industry Co., Ltd., and Tak

Fat Trading Co. The periods of review

are August 5, 1998, through January 31,

2000, for China Processed Food Import

& Export Co. and Gerber Food (Yunnan)

Co., Ltd., and May 7, 1998 through

January 31, 2000, for Mei Wei Food

Industry Co., Ltd. and Tak Fat Trading

Co.2. See Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews, 65 FR 16875, March 30, 2000.

As a result of the review, the

Department of Commerce has

preliminarily determined that dumping

margins exist for the exports of the

subject merchandise by Mei Wei Food

Industry Co., Ltd. and Tak Fat Trading

Co. for the covered period. The

Department will issue separate

preliminary results no later than

October 31, 2000, for the other two

respondents.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Rebecca Trainor,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4136 or

(202) 482–4007, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s regulations

are to 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

Background

On February 19, 1999, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register (64

FR 8308) an antidumping duty order on

certain preserved mushrooms from the

People’s Republic of China (PRC). On

February 14, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register (65

FR 7348) a notice of opportunity to

request an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

preserved mushrooms from the PRC

covering the period August 5, 1998,

through January 31, 2000. On February

29, 2000, the petitioners requested, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that

we conduct an administrative review of

exports to the United States by China

Processed Food Import & Export Co.

(CPF), Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co.

(Gerber), Mei Wei Food Industry Co.,

Ltd. (Mei Wei), and Tak Fat Trading Co.

(Tak Fat) of certain preserved

mushrooms from the PRC. CPF and

Gerber also requested on February 28,

2000, that we conduct administrative

reviews of their respective exports. On

March 29, 2000, the Department issued

the antidumping questionnaire to CPF,

Gerber, Mei Wei and Tak Fat. On March

30, 2000, the Department published a

notice of initiation of an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain preserved mushrooms from

the PRC with respect to CPF, Gerber,

Mei Wei and Tak Fat (65 FR 16875). The

Department is now conducting that

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

The Department received timely

questionnaire responses from CPF and

Gerber and is currently analyzing their

information. We will issue preliminary

results based on these responses by the

statutory due date. However, on May 5,

2000, Mei Wei and Tak Fat submitted a

letter to the Department advising that

they would not respond to the

antidumping duty questionnaire

because they claimed that the

merchandise they exported to the

United States during the period of

review (POR) was ‘‘marinated’’

mushrooms which are outside the scope

of the antidumping duty order.

In a separate scope proceeding, the

Department determined that certain

preserved mushrooms produced,

exported, or imported by Mei Wei, Tak

Fat, Leung Mi International, Tak Yeun

Corp., and the U.S. Importer Genex

International Corp. and identified as

‘‘marinated’’ or ‘‘acidified’’ are within

the scope of the antidumping duty

order. This determination was based on

the acetic acid content level of the

merchandise in question. See

Recommendation Memorandum—Final

Ruling of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for

Exclusion of Certain Marinated,

Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of

the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s

Republic of China, dated June 19, 2000.

As a result of the scope proceeding, the

Department learned that a large number

of entries of the merchandise at issue in

the scope inquiry produced/exported by

Mei Wei and Tak Fat during the POR

have not been liquidated. See ‘‘U.S.

Customs Data on Imports of Acidified

Mushrooms,’’ Memorandum to the File

dated June 19, 2000. This merchandise

incorrectly entered the U.S. Customs

territory without the payment of cash

deposits or the posting of a special

dumping bond by the U.S. Importer. In

order to insure the proper final

collection of antidumping duties on

these preserved mushroom entries, and

40610 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

3On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that

‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms

containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are

within the scope of the antidumping duty order.

4 In the LTFV investigation, Tak Fat was

identified as a Hong Kong company. There is no

information about Tak Fat’s location, ownership, or

corporate structure on the record of this review that

would establish Tak Fat’s eligibility for a separate

rate.

given Tak Fat’s and Mei Wei’s refusal to

cooperate in this review, we are issuing

the preliminary results of this

administrative review with respect to

Mei Wei and Tak Fat on an expedited

basis. See ‘‘Separate Rates

Determination’’ and ‘‘PRC-Wide Rate

and Use of Facts Otherwise Available’’

sections below.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are certain preserved mushrooms

whether imported whole, sliced, diced,

or as stems and pieces. The preserved

mushrooms covered under this review

are the species Agaricus bisporus and

Agaricus bitorquis. ‘‘Preserved

mushrooms’’ refer to mushrooms that

have been prepared or preserved by

cleaning, blanching, and sometimes

slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are

then packed and heated in containers

including but not limited to cans or

glass jars in a suitable liquid medium,

including but not limited to water,

brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved

mushrooms may be imported whole,

sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.

Included within the scope of this review

are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms, which are

presalted and packed in a heavy salt

solution to provisionally preserve them

for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this

review are the following: (1) All other

species of mushroom, including straw

mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled

mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or

‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’; (3) dried

mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and

(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified’’ or

‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are

prepared or preserved by means of

vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain

oil or other additives.3

The merchandise subject to this

review is classifiable under subheadings

2003.1000.27, 2003.1000.31,

2003.1000.37, 2003.1000.43,

2003.1000.47, 2003.1000.53, and

0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’).

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this review is dispositive.

Separate Rates Determination

In previous antidumping duty

proceedings, the Department has treated

the PRC as a non-market economy

(NME) country. We have no evidence

suggesting that this determination

should be changed. Accordingly, the

Department has determined that NME

treatment is appropriate in this review.

See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act.

To establish whether a company

operating in a NME is sufficiently

independent to be entitled to a separate

rate, the Department analyzes each

exporting entity under the test

established in the Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Sparklers from the People’s Republic of

China, 56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991

(Sparklers), as amplified by the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR

22585, May 2, 1994 (Silicon Carbide).

Under this test, companies operating in

a NME are entitled to separate,

company-specific margins when they

can demonstrate an absence of

government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to export activities

(Sparklers, 56 FR 20589). Evidence

supporting, though not requiring, a

finding of de jure absence of

government control over export

activities includes: (1) An absence of

restrictive stipulations associated with

the individual exporter’s business and

export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies

(id.). De facto absence of government

control over exports is based on four

factors: (1) Whether each exporter sets

its own export prices independent of the

government and without the approval of

a government authority; (2) whether

each exporter retains the proceeds from

its sales and makes independent

decisions regarding the disposition of

profits or financing of losses; (3)

whether each exporter has the authority

to negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; and (4) whether each

exporter has autonomy from the

government regarding the selection of

management (see Silicon Carbide, 59 FR

22587).

In the instant review, neither Mei Wei

nor Tak Fat submitted responses to the

Department’s antidumping duty

questionnaire, including the separate

rates section. We therefore preliminarily

determine that these companies did not

establish their entitlement to a separate

rate in this review and, therefore, are

presumed to be part of the PRC NME

entity and, as such, are subject to the

PRC country-wide rate.4. Accordingly,

exports by these companies are

preliminarily assigned the PRC-wide

rate, which is the highest margin in the

LTFV petition.

PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts

Otherwise Available

As noted above, Mei Wei and Tak Fat

submitted a letter to the record stating

that they would not participate in this

review. Because of their refusal to

cooperate in this review and their

failure to establish their entitlement to

a separate rate, we determine that the

application of the PRC-wide rate, which

is based on facts available, is

appropriate, pursuant to section

776(a)(2) of the Act.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that ‘‘if an interested party or any other

person (A) withholds information that

has been requested by the administering

authority; (B) fails to provide such

information by the deadlines for the

submission of the information or in the

form and manner requested, subject to

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782;

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding

under this title; or (D) provides such

information but the information cannot

be verified as provided in section 782(i),

the administering authority shall,

subject to section 782(d), use the facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination under this

title.’’

Because Mei Wei and Tak Fat have

refused to participate in this

administrative review, we find that, in

accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A)

and (C) of the Act, the use of total facts

available is appropriate (see, e.g., Notice

of Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Persulfates from The

People’s Republic of China, 62 FR

27222, 27224, May 19, 1997; and

Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel

From Italy: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 2655, Jan. 17, 1997 (for

a more detailed discussion, see

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Certain

Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From

Italy, 61 FR 36551, 36552, July 4, 1996)).

Because these respondents have

provided no information, sections

782(d) and (e) are not relevant to our

analysis.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that, if the Department finds that an

interested party ‘‘has failed to cooperate

by not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information,’’

the Department may use information

that is adverse to the interests of the

party as facts otherwise available.

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to

ensure that the party does not obtain a

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40611

more favorable result by failing to

cooperate than if it had cooperated

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative

Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA,

H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, at 870 (1994).

Furthermore, ‘‘an affirmative finding of

bad faith on the part of the respondent

is not required before the Department

may make an adverse inference.’’ See

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340,

May 19, 1997.

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes

the Department to use as adverse facts

available information derived from the

petition, the final determination from

the LTFV investigation, a previous

administrative review, or any other

information placed on the record. Under

section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent

has a responsibility not only to notify

the Department if it is unable to provide

requested information, but also to

provide a ‘‘full explanation and

suggested alternative forms.’’ Mei Wei’s

and Tak Fat’s March 5, 2000, letter

documented for the record their refusal

to provide this information and they

have otherwise failed to respond to our

requests for information, thereby failing

to comply with this provision of the

statute. Therefore, we determine that

respondents failed to cooperate to the

best of their ability, making the use of

an adverse inference appropriate.

In this proceeding, in accordance with

Department practice (see, e.g.,

Rescission of Second New Shipper

Review and Final Results and Partial

Rescission of First Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review Brake Rotors

From the People’s Republic of China, 64

FR 61581, 61584, November 12, 1999;

and Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Fresh

Garlic From the People’s Republic of

China, 64 FR 39115, July 21, 1999), as

adverse facts available, we have

preliminarily assigned to exports of

subject merchandise by Mei Wei and

Tak Fat the PRC-wide rate which is

198.63 percent, the rate established in

the LTFV investigation, and the highest

dumping margin determined in any

segment of this proceeding. The

Department’s practice when selecting an

adverse rate from among the possible

sources of information is to ensure that

the margin is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to

effectuate the purpose of the facts

available rule to induce respondents to

provide the Department with complete

and accurate information in a timely

manner.’’ See Final Determination of

Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static

Random Access Memory

Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR

8909, 8932, February 23, 1998.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

where the Department selects from

among the facts otherwise available and

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the

Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that information

from independent sources reasonably at

the Department’s disposal. Secondary

information is described in the SAA as

‘‘{i}nformation derived from the

petition that gave rise to the

investigation or review, the final

determination concerning the subject

merchandise, or any previous review

under section 751 concerning the

subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870.

The SAA states that ‘‘corroborate’’

means to determine that the information

used has probative value (id.). To

corroborate secondary information, the

Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

To examine the reliability of margins in

the petition, we examine whether, based

on available evidence, those margins

reasonably reflect a level of dumping

that may have occurred during the

period of investigation by any firm,

including those that did not provide us

with usable information. This procedure

generally consists of examining, to the

extent practicable, whether the

significant elements used to derive the

petition margins, or the resulting

margins, are supported by independent

sources. With respect to the relevance

aspect of corroboration, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin not relevant. Where

circumstances indicate that the selected

margin may not be relevant, the

Department will attempt to find a more

appropriate basis for facts available. See,

e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico, 61 FR 6812, 6814,

February 22, 1996 (where the

Department disregarded the highest

margin as best information available

because the margin was based on

another company’s uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an

unusually high margin).

In the underlying LTFV investigation,

we established the reliability of the

petition margin (see, Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement

of Final Determination: Certain

Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s

Republic of China, 63 FR 41794, 41798,

August 5, 1998; and Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Preserved

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic

of China, 63 FR 72255, December 31,

1998). As there is no information on the

record of this review that demonstrates

that this rate is not an appropriate

adverse facts available rate for the PRCwide rate, we determine that this rate

has probative value and, therefore, is an

appropriate basis for the PRC-wide rate

to be applied in this review to exports

of subject merchandise by Mei Wei and

Tak Fat as facts otherwise available.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin applies for the period

May 7, 1998, through January 31, 2000,

for those imports where the exporter is

Mei Wei or Tak Fat:

Exporter/manufacturer Margin percentage

PRC-wide Rate ......................... 198.63

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service. Upon publication

of the final results of this administrative

review, the cash deposit rate for all

shipments by Mei Wei or Tak Fat of the

subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, will be the PRC-wide rate stated in

the final results of this administrative

review, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309,

interested parties may submit written

comments in response to these

preliminary results. Case briefs must be

submitted within 10 days after the date

of publication of this notice, and

rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments

raised in case briefs, must be submitted

no later than five days after the time

limit for filing case briefs. Parties who

submit argument in this proceeding are

requested to submit with the argument:

(1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. Case

and rebuttal briefs must be served on

interested parties in accordance with 19

CFR 351.303(f). In addition, pursuant to

19 CFR 351.310, within 10 days of the

date of publication of this notice,

interested parties may request a public

hearing on arguments raised in the case

and rebuttal briefs. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held two days after

the date for submission of rebuttal

40612 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

briefs, that is, 17 days after the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review

with respect to subject merchandise

exports by Mei Wei and Tak Fat,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief

or at a hearing, not later than 120 days

after the date of publication of these

preliminary results, unless this time

period is extended.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping

duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review

period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 23, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–16510 Filed 6–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 062600LE]

StormReady Application Form

AGENCY: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment

request.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on

proposed and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before August 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Linda Engelmeier, Departmental

Forms Clearance Officer, Department of

Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington

DC 20230 (or via Internet at

lengelme@doc.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection

instrument and instructions should be

directed to Richard Roberts, OFA 1x1,

Station 8118, NOAA, 1305 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301–713–3525, ext. 115).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

StormReady is a communityrecognition program for emergency

management preparedness, and it is

used to provide guidance on hazardous

weather operations and to provide an

incentive to officials. The StormReady

Application Form is used by localities

to apply for recognition. The National

Weather Service will use the

information on the application to

determine whether the community has

met all of the criteria for recognition.

This information collection was recently

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget on an emergency basis, and

this Notice solicits comments on the

agency’s plan to ask for a three-year

approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

II. Method of Collection

Paper application forms are

submitted. Copies of the form will be

made available electronically at

‘‘www.nws.noaa.gov/stormready’’. The

agency is investigating ways to allow

submissions via the Internet.

III. Data

OMB Number: 0648–0419.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal

government.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

40.

Estimated Time Per Response:1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 40.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to

Public: $40.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden

(including hours and cost) of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

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 also will become a matter of public

record.

Dated: June 23, 2000.

Madeleine Clayton,

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–16538 Filed 6–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–KE

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[I.D. 062600A]

Submission for OMB Review;

Proposed Information Collection;

Comment Request

The Department of Commerce has

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for clearance the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

Agency: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Title: Southwest Region Logbook

Family of Forms.

Agency Form Number(s): None.

OMB Approval Number: 0648–0214.

Type of Request: Regular submission.

Burden Hours: 2,314.

Number of Respondents: 160.

Average Hours Per Response: In the

Pacific pelagic fishery: 5.25 minutes/day

for a logbook, 3 minutes/trip for a pretrip notification, 1 hour for an observer

placement meeting, 4 hours per claim

for lost fishing time, 4 hours for

installation of a vessel monitoring

system (VMS), 2 hours per year for VMS

maintenance, and 24 seconds/day for

automatic VMS monitoring. In the

crustacean fishery: 3 min./trip for a prelanding or pre-offloading notification, 5

minutes per day for a logbook, 3

minutes for an at-sea catch report, 3

minutes for a pre-season VMS

notification, 24 seconds a day for

automatic VMS monitoring, and 5

minutes for sales reports.

In the bottomfish and seamount

groundfish fishery, 2 hours for a

protected species interaction report. In

the precious coral fishery, 7 minutes a

day for a logbook and 5 minutes per

sales report. In the experimental fishing

program, 4 hours per report.

Needs and Uses: Participants in

Federally-managed fisheries in the