41786 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

liquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percentage

PT Dieng Djaya/PT Surya Jaya

Abadi Perkasa ......................... 11.24

PT Zeta Agro Corporation .......... 29.58

All Others .................................... 15.35

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least ten copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than October

16, 1998, and rebuttal briefs no later

than October 23, 1998. A list of

authorities used and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

Such summary should be limited to five

pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act,

we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, the hearing will be held on

October 27, 1998, time and room to be

determined, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) the party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination by no later than 135

days after the publication of this notice

in the Federal Register.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

773(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: July 27, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–20909 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–337–804]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Preserved Mushrooms From Chile

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Katherine

Johnson, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4136 or (202) 482–4929,

respectively.

The 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 (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce

(‘‘Department’’) regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR part 351, 62 FR

27296 (May 19, 1997).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain preserved mushrooms

(‘‘mushrooms’’) from Chile are being, or

are likely to be, sold in the United States

at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as

provided in section 733 of the Act. The

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are

shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping Investigations: Certain

Preserved Mushrooms From Chile,

India, Indonesia, and the People’s

Republic of China (63 FR 5360,

February 2, 1998)), the following events

have occurred:

During January and February 1998,

the Department requested information

from the U.S. Embassy in Chile to

identify producers/exporters of the

subject merchandise. During February

1998, the Department also requested

and received comments from the

petitioners and potential respondents

regarding the model matching criteria.

On February 27, 1998, the United

States International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) notified the Department of its

affirmative preliminary injury

determination in this case.

Also on February 27, 1998, the

Department issued an antidumping duty

questionnaire to Nature’s Farm Products

(Chile), S.A. (‘‘NFP’’), the sole exporter

of the subject merchandise from Chile.

In March 1998, the Department

received a response to Section A of the

questionnaire from NFP. NFP reported

that its home market was not viable

during the period of investigation (POI),

but that its sales to Brazil during the POI

constituted a viable third country

market.

On March 30, 1998, the Department

issued a notice identifying a period for

interested parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. (See Certain

Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, India,

Indonesia, and the People’s Republic of

China: Comments Regarding Product

Coverage, 63 FR 16971 (April 7, 1998).

NFP submitted comments on April 30,

1998, stating that product coverage

should include fresh mushrooms as well

as preserved mushrooms.

On April 1, 1998, the petitioners in

this investigation, L.K. Bowman, Inc.,

Modern Mushroom Farms, Inc.,

Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Mount

Laurel Canning Corp., Mushroom

Canning Company, Sunny Dell Foods,

Inc., and United Canning Corp.,

submitted a timely allegation pursuant

to section 773(b) of the Act that NFP

had made sales in the third country

market at less than the cost of

production (‘‘COP’’). Our analysis of the

allegation indicated that there were

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that NFP sold mushrooms in the third

country market at prices less than the

COP. Accordingly, we initiated a COP

investigation with respect to NFP

pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act

(See Memorandum from Team to Louis

Apple, Office Director, dated April 8,

1998).

On April 30, 1998, the Department

requested comments as to whether it

should consider ‘‘whole mushroom

size’’ as a physical characteristic for its

model matching methodology. On May

14, 1998, NFP responded to the

Department’s request for information.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41787

On May 1, 1998, pursuant to section

733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the petitioners

made a timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination for forty

days. We granted this request and, on

May 8, 1998, we postponed the

preliminary determination until no later

than July 27, 1998. (See 63 FR 27264,

May 18, 1998).

We received NFP’s responses to

Sections B and C of the questionnaire in

April 1998. We issued a supplemental

questionnaire for Sections A, B, and C

to NFP in April 1998 and received

responses to these questionnaires, along

with the Section D response, in May

1998. In May 1998, we issued a

supplemental questionnaire for Section

D to NFP and received the response to

this questionnaire in June 1998. NFP

submitted additional information

concerning its response data in June and

July 1998.

In the supplemental Section B

response, NFP stated that, after a review

of its date of sale methodology for U.S.

sales, revisions to its POI sales totals

indicated that the home market may, in

fact, be viable. In response, the

petitioners filed a sales below COP

allegation on NFP’s home market sales

on July 6, 1998. As discussed below

under ‘‘Home Market Viability, ‘‘ the

Department has determined that the

home market is not viable.

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are certain preserved

mushrooms whether imported whole,

sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.

The preserved mushrooms covered

under this investigation 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 the

investigation 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

investigation 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.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classifiable under

subheadings 2003.10.27, 2003.10.31,

2003.10.37, 2003.10.43,

2003.10.47.2003.10.53, 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, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is

January 1, 1997, through December 31,

1997.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by NFP covered by the

description in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section, above, and sold

to Brazil during the POI to be foreign

like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. As discussed

below, we determined that there were

no comparable third country sales in the

ordinary course of trade (i.e., above cost)

during the POI. Therefore, we compared

U.S. sales to constructed value ( ‘‘CV’’),

as described below.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

mushrooms from Chile to the United

States were made at less than fair value,

we compared constructed export price

(‘‘CEP’’) to the Normal Value (‘‘NV’’), as

described in the ‘‘Constructed Export

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of

this notice, below. In accordance with

section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

calculated weighted-average CEPs for

comparison to weighted-average NVs or

CVs.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the CEP

transaction. The NV LOT is that of the

starting-price sales in the comparison

market or, when NV is based on

constructed value (‘‘CV’’), that of the

sales from which we derive selling,

general and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’)

expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the

level of the constructed sale from the

exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than CEP, we

examined stages in the marketing

process and selling functions along the

chain of distribution between the

producer and the unaffiliated customer.

If the comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make an

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP

sales, if the NV level is more remote

from the factory than the CEP level and

there is no basis for determining

whether the difference in the levels

between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEPoffset provision). See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In this case, we compared all U.S.

sales to CV, as noted above. As we could

not determine the LOT of the sales from

which we derived the profit for CV, we

could not determine whether there is a

difference in LOT between any U.S.

sales and CV. Therefore, we made no

LOT adjustment nor a CEP offset to NV.

Constructed Export Price

We calculated CEP, in accordance

with subsections 772(b) of the Act,

because sales to the first unaffiliated

purchaser took place after importation

into the United States.

We based CEP on the packed exwarehouse or delivered prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions for

discounts and rebates, where applicable.

We also made deductions for the

following movement expenses, where

appropriate, in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage, international

freight (including marine insurance),

U.S. customs duties, post-sale

warehousing expenses, and U.S. inland

freight. In accordance with section

772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those

selling expenses associated with

economic activities occurring in the

United States, including direct selling

expenses (credit costs, commissions and

other direct selling expenses), inventory

carrying costs, and other indirect selling

expenses. We also deducted the profit

allocated to these expenses, in

accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and

772(f) of the Act.

NFP reported receipt of an export

incentive credit from the Chilean

government on both U.S. and Brazilian

sales. As there is no statutory provision
41788 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

for an adjustment for this credit, we

disregarded it when calculating CEP and

NV.

We excluded from our analysis NFP’s

sales of imperfect merchandise because

the quantity involved is insignificant

and NFP made no comparable third

country sales of this type of

merchandise. See, e.g., Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value and Postponement of Final

Determination: Canned Pineapple Fruit

from Thailand, 60 FR 2734, 2737

(January 11, 1995).

Normal Value

After testing (1) home market and

third country viability as discussed

below, and (2) whether third country

sales were at below-cost prices, we

calculated NV as noted in the ‘‘Price-toCV Comparisons’’ section of this notice.

1. Home and Third Country Market

Viability

In order to determine whether there is

a sufficient volume of sales in the home

market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product is equal to or

greater than five percent of the aggregate

volume of U.S. sales), we compared the

respondent’s volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because

NFP’s aggregate volume of POI home

market sales of the foreign like product

was less than five percent of its

aggregate volume of POI U.S. sales for

the subject merchandise (as determined

by the date of sale methodology applied

by the Department discussed in a

Memorandum from the Team to Louis

Apple dated July 27, 1998), we

determined that the home market was

not viable for NFP. However, we

determined that Brazil, NFP’s largest

third country market, was viable in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we

determined that Brazil is the

appropriate foreign market for

calculating NV.

2. Cost of Production Analysis

As stated in the ‘‘Case History’’

section of the notice, based on a timely

allegation filed by the petitioners, the

Department initiated a COP

investigation of NFP to determine

whether sales were made at prices less

than the COP.

We conducted the COP analysis

described below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated COP based on

the sum of NFP’s cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus an amount for third country SG&A,

interest expenses, and packing costs. We

used the information from NFP’s

Section D supplemental questionnaire

response to calculate COP, with the

following adjustments:

(1) We revised NFP’s submitted

general and administrative (‘‘G&A’’)

expense rate because NFP calculated

G&A as a percentage of sales revenue,

rather than cost of goods sold . In

addition, NFP calculated a separate rate

for each product. We calculated a

company-wide G&A rate by dividing

total G&A expense by total

manufacturing cost.

(2) The Department normally

calculates financial expenses on a

consolidated basis; however, NFP did

not provide either a consolidated

financial statement or a consolidated

financial expense rate. Therefore, we

recalculated NFP’s financial expense

rate based on its non-consolidated

financial statement. In its calculation,

NFP claimed the full amount of the

monetary correction as an offset to its

financial expense. We allowed only the

portion of the monetary correction

associated with the current portion of its

bank loans since the remaining portion

relates to other fiscal periods. In

addition, NFP failed to respond to the

Department’s request for a detailed

analysis of its foreign exchange gains

and losses. Therefore, we included the

entire amount of the net foreign

exchange loss in our calculation of

financial expense. We calculated a

revised net financial expense and

divided it by the total manufacturing

costs.

Startup Adjustment Claim. NFP

claimed a startup adjustment to its COP

under section 773(f)(1)(C) of the Act,

alleging that it has yet to achieve

commercial production levels and, thus,

continues to operate in a start-up mode.

Although NFP completed construction

of its plant in 1994, it contends that, due

to technical difficulties associated with

harvesting necessary raw materials,

commercial production levels have not

yet been reached. NFP estimates that

these levels will be reached in mid1999.

Section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act

authorizes adjustments for start-up

operations ‘‘only where (I) a producer is

using new production facilities or

producing a new product that requires

substantial additional investment, and

(II) production levels are limited by

technical factors associated with the

initial phase of production.’’ NFP’s

production facilities were three years

old by the start of the POI; therefore, we

do not consider these facilities to be

‘‘new’’ within the meaning of section

773(f)(1)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act.

Moreover, NFP has not identified any

additional costs associated with

‘‘substantially retooling’’ its production

facilities, which, according to the

Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.

316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994)

(‘‘SAA’’), might satisfy the first

criterion. Because section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii)

of the Act establishes that both prongs

of the test must be met before a startup

adjustment is warranted, this finding is

sufficient to deny NFP’s claim.

Therefore, we need not address NFP’s

arguments concerning technical factors

that limit commercial production levels

(see Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value:

Collated Roofing Nails from Korea, 62

FR 51420, 51426, October 1, 1997).

B. Test of Third Country Sales Prices

We compared the weighted-average

COP for NFP, adjusted where

appropriate, to third country sales of the

foreign like product as required under

section 773(b) of the Act. In determining

whether to disregard third country

market sales made at prices less than the

COP, we examined whether (1) within

an extended period of time, such sales

were made in substantial quantities, and

(2) such sales were made at prices

which permitted the recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the third country

market prices, less any applicable

movement charges, and direct and

indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product during the POI were

at prices less than the COP, we

determined such sales to have been

made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within

an extended period of time in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of

the Act. In such cases, we also

determined that such sales were not

made at prices which would permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time, in accordance with
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41789

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

Therefore, we disregarded the belowcost sales. Where all sales of a specific

product were at prices below the COP,

we disregarded all sales of that product.

We found that all of NFP’s Brazilian

sales were at prices below the COP.

Thus, in the absence of any above-cost

Brazilian sales, we compared

constructed export prices to CV in

accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the

Act.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Act, we calculated CV based on

the sum of NFP’s cost of materials,

fabrication, SG&A, interest, and U.S.

packing costs. We made the same

adjustments to NFP’s reported costs for

the CV calculation as we made for the

COP calculation.

Because there were no above-cost

Brazilian sales and hence no actual

company-specific profit data available

for NFP’s sales of the foreign like

product to Brazil, we calculated profit

expenses in accordance with section

773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and the SAA.

Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) states that profit

may be determined under any

reasonable method with the appropriate

‘‘profit cap.’’ The SAA, however,

provides that where, due to the absence

of data, the Department cannot

determine amounts for profit under

alternatives (i) or (ii) of section

773(e)(2)(B) of the Act or a ‘‘profit cap’’

under alternative (iii) of section

773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department

may apply alternative (iii) on the basis

of the facts available (SAA at 841). In

this case, we are unable to determine an

amount for profit under alternatives (i)

or (ii), or a ‘‘profit cap’’ under

alternative (iii) because we do not have

actual amounts incurred by NFP on

sales of merchandise in the same

general category as the subject

merchandise and because NFP is the

only producer subject to this

investigation. Therefore, as facts

availabe under section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii)

of the Act, for NFP’s profit we are using

the 1996 profit margin for Ianasafrut

S.A., a leading Chilean fruit and

vegetable producer. We believe this data

is a reasonable surrogate for NFP’s profit

because it is based upon a Chilean

producer’s experience on sales of the

same general category as the subject

merchandise for a period in which there

was no alleged dumping. For SG&A, we

have used NFP’s actual expenses

incurred in Chile on Brazilian sales

because this data reflects NFP’s actual

experience in selling the foreign like

product.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

For price-to-CV comparisons, we

made adjustments to CV in accordance

with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We

deducted from CV the amount of

indirect selling expenses capped by the

amount of the U.S. commissions.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank,

in accordance with section 773A of the

Act.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information relied

upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the export price, as indicated in

the chart below. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percentage

Nature’s Farm Products (Chile)

S.A. .......................................... 142.43

All Others .................................... 142.43

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least ten copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than September

8, 1998, and rebuttal briefs no later than

September 11, 1998. A list of authorities

used and an executive summary of

issues should accompany any briefs

submitted to the Department. Such

summary should be limited to five pages

total, including footnotes. In accordance

with section 774 of the Act, we will

hold a public hearing, if requested, to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the

hearing will be held on September 15,

1998, time and room to be determined,

at the U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th Street and Constitution Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties

should confirm by telephone the time,

date, and place of the hearing 48 hours

before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) the party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination by October 13, 1998.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: July 27, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–20910 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–813]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From

India

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katherine Johnson or David J.

Goldberger, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4929 or (202) 482–4136,

respectively.