13896 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices

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., Modern

Mushroom Farms, Inc., Monterey Mushrooms, Inc.,

Mount Laurel Canning Corp., Mushrooms Canning

Company, Southwood Farms, Sunny Dell Foods,

Inc., and United Canning Corp.

(Shandong) People’s Republic of China,

the producer/exporter of the

merchandise.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i)

and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A),

Groupstars’ January 30, 2001 request for

review, as corrected in its February 22,

2001 submission, certified that it did

not export the subject merchandise to

the United States during the POI and

that it is not affiliated with any

company which exported subject

merchandise to the United States during

the POI. Pursuant to 19 CFR

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Groupstars’

corrected request certified that its export

activities are not controlled by the

central government of the PRC.

In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR

351.214(b)(2)(iv), Groupstars’ request

contained documentation establishing:

the date after the POI on which

Groupstars first shipped the subject

merchandise for export to the United

States, the volume of that shipment, and

the date of the first sale to an

unaffiliated customer in the United

States.

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 provide de jure and

de facto evidence of an absence of

government control over the company’s

export activities. See Certain Preserved

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic

of China: Initiation of New Shipper

Antidumping Duty Review, 65 FR 17257

(March 31, 2000). Accordingly, we will

issue a separate rates questionnaire to

the above-named respondent. If the

respondent provides sufficient evidence

that it is not subject to either de jure or

de facto government control with

respect to its exports of potassium

permanganate, this review will proceed.

If, on the other hand, Groupstars does

not meet its burden to demonstrate its

eligibility for a separate rate, then

Groupstars will be deemed to be

affiliated with other companies that

exported during the POI. This review

will then be terminated due to failure of

the exporter or producer to meet the

requirements of section

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

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B).

Initiation of Review

The antidumping duty order on

potassium permanganate from the PRC

has a January anniversary month. See

Antidumping Duty Order: Potassium

Permanganate From the People’s

Republic of China, 49 FR 3897 (January

31, 1984). The Department received

Groupstars’ request for review on

January 30, 2001. The Department’s

regulations provide that it will initiate

a new shipper review in the calendar

month immediately following the

anniversary month if the request for the

review is made during the six-month

period ending with the end of the

anniversary month. See 19 CFR

351.214(d)(1).

Although Groupstars’ request may

have been deficient in some respects, at

the Department’s request, Groupstars

promptly clarified and corrected the

deficiencies in its request prior to the

Department’s deadline for initiating this

review, i.e. prior to the end of the month

immediately following the anniversary

month (February). With respect to

petitioner’s allegation of affiliation, the

Department will examine this issue

during the course of this review.

In accordance with section

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

351.214(d), we are initiating a new

shipper review of the antidumping duty

order on potassium permanganate from

the PRC. We intend to issue the

preliminary results of this review not

later than 180 days after the date on

which the review is initiated.

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 this new

shipper is:

Antidumping duty

proceeding

Period to be

reviewed

Potassium Permanganate from the PRC, A–

570–001:

Groupstars Chemical, Co. Ltd.

(‘‘Shandong’’) ....... 1/1/00–12/31/00

Subject to receipt of an adequate

separate rates questionnaire response

from the respondent, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to suspend

liquidation of unliquidated entries of

subject merchandise from the above

company and allow, at the option of the

importer, the posting of a bond or

security in lieu of a cash deposit for

each entry of the merchandise exported

by the company listed above, until the

completion of the review.

Interested parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective order 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.

Dated: February 28, 2001.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, For Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–5771 Filed 3–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–813]

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from

India: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests

by three manufacturer/exporters and

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

India with respect to twelve companies:

Agro Dutch Foods Ltd., Alpine Biotech

Ltd., Dinesh Agro Products Ltd., Flex

Foods Ltd., Himalya International Ltd.,

Hindustan Lever Ltd. (formerly Ponds

India Ltd.), Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd.,

Premier Mushroom Farms, Saptarishi

Agro Industries Ltd., Techtran Agro

Industries Limited, Transchem Ltd., and

Weikfield Agro Products Ltd.

On June 22, 2000, we received a

timely submission from the petitioners

to withdraw their request for

administrative review for Alpine

Biotech, Ltd., Dinesh Agro Products

Ltd., Flex Foods Ltd., Mandeep

Mushrooms Ltd., Premier Mushroom

Farms, Saptarishi Agro Industries Ltd.,

and Transchem Ltd. On July 18, 2000,

the Department published a notice of

partial recission of the antidumping

duty administrative review with respect

to the above-mentioned companies (65

FR 44522). The period of review is

August 5, 1998, through January 31,

2000.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below normal value.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices 13897

our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct the Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

all appropriate entries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger, Katherine Johnson,

or Dinah McDougall, Office 2, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group I, Import

Administration-Room B099,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4136, (202) 482–4929, or (202) 482–

3773, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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’s regulations are to 19

CFR part 351 (April 1999).

Background

On December 31, 1998, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (63 FR 72246) the final

affirmative antidumping duty

determination on certain preserved

mushrooms from India. On February 19,

1999, the Department published an

amended final determination and

antidumping duty order (64 FR 8311) .

On February 14, 2000, the Department

published a notice advising of the

opportunity to request an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain preserved mushrooms from

India (65 FR 7348). In response to

timely requests by three manufacturer/

exporters, Agro Dutch Foods Ltd. (Agro

Dutch), Himalya International Ltd.

(Himalya), and Hindustan Lever Ltd.

(formerly Ponds India Ltd.) (HLL), and

the petitioners, the Department

published a notice of initiation of an

administrative review with respect to

twelve companies: Agro Dutch, Alpine

Biotech Ltd. (Alpine Biotech), Dinesh

Agro Products Ltd. (Dinesh Agro), Flex

Foods Ltd. (Flex Foods), Himalya, HLL,

Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd. (Mandeep),

Premier Mushroom Farms (Premier),

Saptarishi Agro Industries Ltd.

(Saptarishi), Techtran Agro Industries

Limited (Techtran), Transchem Ltd.

(Transchem), Weikfield Agro Products

Ltd. (Weikfield) (65 FR 16875, March

30, 2000). The period of review (POR)

is August 5, 1998, through January 31,

2000.

On March 29, 2000, the Department

issued antidumping duty questionnaires

to the above-mentioned twelve

companies. We received responses to

the original questionnaire during the

period March 2000 through May 2000.

We issued supplemental questionnaires

to the five respondents for which the

reviews were not rescinded (see below)

and received responses for them during

the period August 2000 through

February 2001.

On June 16, 2000, the Department

received allegations from the petitioners

that Techtran and Weikfield sold certain

preserved mushrooms in India at prices

below the cost of production (COP). On

July 18, 2000, the Department initiated

cost investigations of Techtran’s and

Weikfield’s home-market sales of this

merchandise.

On June 22, 2000, we received a

timely submission from the petitioners

withdrawing their request for

administrative review for Alpine

Biotech, Dinesh Agro, Flex Foods,

Mandeep, Premier, Saptarishi, and

Transchem. On July 18, 2000, the

Department published a notice of partial

recission of the antidumping duty

administrative review with respect to

the above-mentioned companies (65 FR

44522).

On July 28, 2000, the Department

extended the time limit for the

preliminary results in this review until

February 28, 2001. See Certain

Preserved Mushrooms from India and

Indonesia: Notice of Extension of Time

Limit for Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 65 FR 46426.

We conducted verification of

Weikfield’s, Techtran’s, and Himalya’s

questionnaire responses during the

period November 2000 through January

2001. The verification reports are on file

in Room B–099 of the Commerce

Department. The Department is

conducting this review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act.

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.

The merchandise subject to this

review is classifiable under subheadings

2003.10.00.27, 2003.10.0031,

2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043,

2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, 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.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we conducted verifications of

Himalya, Techtran, and Weikfield from

November 2000 through January 2001.

We conducted the verifications using

standard verification procedures

including on-site inspection of the

manufacturers’ facilities, the

examination of relevant accounting,

sales, and other financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public versions of the verification

reports which are on file in the Central

Records Unit (CRU) in room B–099 of

the Main Commerce Building.

Based on verification, we made

certain changes to data in the sales

listings submitted by Himalya,

Techtran, and Weikfield used to

calculate the preliminary margins (see

below and the company-specific

calculation memoranda dated February

28, 2001).

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of certain

preserved mushrooms by the

respondents to the United States were

made at less than normal value, we

compared constructed export price

(CEP) or export price, as appropriate, to

the normal value, as described in the

‘‘Export Price/Constructed Export Price’’

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this

notice.

13898 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the

Act, we compared the export prices of

individual U.S. transactions to the

weighted-average normal value of the

foreign like product where there were

sales made in the ordinary course of

trade, as discussed in the ‘‘Cost of

Production Analysis’’ section below.

In this proceeding, neither HLL nor

Himalya had a viable home or third

country market. Therefore, as the basis

for normal value, we used constructed

value when making comparisons in

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

Act.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by the respondents covered by

the description in the ‘‘Scope of the

Review’’ section, above, to be foreign

like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. With respect

to Agro Dutch, Techtran, and Weikfield,

we compared U.S. sales to sales made in

the home or third country market within

the contemporaneous window period,

which extends from three months prior

to the U.S. sale until two months after

the sale. Where there were no sales of

identical merchandise in the home or

third country market made in the

ordinary course of trade to compare to

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to

sales of the most similar foreign like

product made in the ordinary course of

trade. For those U.S. sales of

mushrooms for which there were no

comparable home or third country

market sales in the ordinary course of

trade (i.e., above cost), we compared

U.S. sales to constructed value.

In making the product comparisons,

we matched foreign like products based

on the physical characteristics reported

by the respondents in the following

order: Preservation method, container

type, mushroom style, weight, grade,

container solution, and label type.

For HLL and Himalya, we compared

U.S. sales to constructed value because

these respondents had insufficient home

market and/or third country sales

during the POR. See ‘‘Normal Value’’

section below for further discussion.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

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

practicable, we determine normal value

based on sales in the comparison market

at the same level of trade (LOT) as the

export price or CEP transaction. The

normal value LOT is that of the startingprice sales in the comparison market or,

when normal value is based on

constructed value, that of the sales from

which we derive selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses and

profit. For export price, the U.S. LOT is

also the level of the starting-price sale,

which is usually from the exporter to an

unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is

the level of the constructed sale from

the exporter to an affiliated importer,

after the deductions required under

section 772(d) of the Act. To determine

whether normal value sales are at a LOT

different from export price or CEP, we

examine 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 normal

value is based and comparison-market

sales at the LOT of the export

transaction, we make a LOT adjustment

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

For CEP sales, if the normal value 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 normal value and

CEP affects price comparability, we

adjust normal value under section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset

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).

We note that the U.S. Court of

International Trade (CIT) has held that

the Department’s practice of

determining LOTs for CEP transactions

after CEP deductions is an

impermissible interpretation of section

772(d) of the Act. See Borden, Inc. v.

United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221,

1241–42 (CIT 1998) (Borden). The

Department believes, however, that its

practice is in full compliance with the

statute. On June 4, 1999, the CIT entered

final judgement in Borden on the LOT

issue. See Borden Inc. v. United States,

Court No. 96–08–01970, Slip Op. 99–50

(CIT June 4, 1999). The government has

filed an appeal of Borden which is

pending before the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Consequently, the Department has

continued to follow its normal practice

of adjusting CEP under section 772(d)

prior to starting a LOT analysis, as

articulated by the Department’s

regulations at § 351.412.

Both Techtran and Weikfield claimed

that they were unable to calculate a LOT

adjustment and, instead, reported home

market indirect selling expenses as a

surrogate LOT adjustment. We have

undertaken an evaluation to determine

whether such an adjustment is

necessary. In so doing, we examined

both respondents’ distribution systems,

including selling functions, classes of

customers, and selling expenses.

Techtran sold to distributors in both

markets. Weikfield provided no basis in

its questionnaire responses to establish

that it had multiple levels of trade in

either market for purposes of this

adjustment. With regard to Agro Dutch,

all sales in both markets are made

through one channel of distribution.

Accordingly, all comparisons are at the

same level of trade for Agro Dutch,

Techtran and Weikfield and an

adjustment pursuant to section

773(a)(7)(A) is not warranted.

With regard to HLL and Himalya, we

compared all U.S. sales to constructed

value, as noted above. As we could not

determine the LOT of the sales from

which we derived the profit for

constructed value, we could not

determine whether there is a difference

in LOT between any U.S. sales and

constructed value. Therefore, we made

no LOT adjustment nor a CEP offset (in

the case of Himalya) to normal value.

Export Price/Constructed Export Price

For Agro Dutch, HLL, Techtran and

Weikfield, we used export price

methodology, in accordance with

section 772(a) of the Act, because the

subject merchandise was sold directly to

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States prior to importation and

CEP methodology was not otherwise

indicated. With respect to Himalya, we

calculated CEP in accordance with

section 772(b) of the Act, because the

subject merchandise was first sold by

Trans Atlantic or Global Reliance after

importation into the United States. We

based export price and CEP on packed

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States. For all respondents, for

those sales for which the payment date

was not reported, we calculated credit

based on the higher of either the average

number of days between shipment and

payment using the sales for which

payment information was reported, or

the most recent questionnaire response

date.

Agro Dutch

We were unable to determine the

appropriate date of sale for certain U.S.

sales because Agro Dutch failed to

provide the requested sales

documentation for these sales. Section

776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provides that the

Department will, subject to section

782(d), use the facts otherwise available

in reaching a determination if a

respondent fails to provide necessary

information ‘‘by the deadlines for

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices 13899

submission of the information or in the

form and manner requested, subject to

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

(of the Act). In accordance with section

776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, in these

preliminary results we find it necessary

to use partial facts available where Agro

Dutch did not provide us with

information necessary to conduct our

date of sale analysis. Section 782(c)(1)

does not apply because Agro Dutch did

not provide a full explanation of why it

was not able to submit this information

on time. Moreover, pursuant to section

782(d), Agro Dutch was specifically

informed that it was required to submit

this information, yet it failed to do so

and failed to provide any explanation

for this deficiency. Finally, under

section 782(e), the Department

concludes that Agro Dutch did not act

to the best of its ability in responding to

requests for this information (see

discussion below).

The date of sale affects the

contemporaneous pool of home market

sales to which the U.S. sale is to be

compared, and the exchange rate for

converting costs and expenses in foreign

currencies. Because we cannot identify

the appropriate date of sale for the

transactions in question, we are unable

to determine the appropriate

contemporaneous home market

comparison sales. Therefore, as facts

available, we have compared these U.S.

sales to a normal value based on

constructed value. As we cannot

identify the date of sale for purposes of

currency conversions, we have applied

the highest exchange rate during the

POR for all currency conversions

involving these sales, as facts available.

The Department is authorized, under

section 776(b) of the Act, to use an

inference that is adverse to the interest

of a party if the Department finds that

the party has failed to cooperate by not

acting to the best of its ability to comply

with the Department’s request for

information. In both the March 29, 2000,

questionnaire and the July 18, 2000,

supplemental questionnaire, we

specifically requested copies of any

sales contracts or agreements with its

U.S. customers. At page 1 of the

business proprietary version of the

August 15, 2000, supplemental

questionnaire response, Agro Dutch

indicates that a relevant sales document

exists with respect to these sales, but

did not include it in its response.

Accordingly, we find that Agro Dutch

has not cooperated with respect to

providing this information and an

adverse inference is warranted in

applying facts available for the dates of

sale for these transactions.

Agro Dutch reported the per-unit

expense incurred for the Indian

Customs fee ‘‘CESS,’’ which is incurred

as a percentage of sales value, on a

weight-basis. We recalculated this

expense on a value basis using the 0.5%

rate reported in the response.

Agro Dutch reported its U.S. sales as

sold on an FOB, C&F, or CIF basis,

indicating that, at a minimum, it was

responsible for all movement expenses

necessary to transport the goods to the

Indian port and load them onto a vessel.

However, Agro Dutch did not report

foreign inland freight, foreign inland

insurance, and foreign brokerage and

handling on its FOB sales. As a result,

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the

Act, it was necessary to use partial facts

available to conduct our analysis. Since

this information was missing for only a

few sales, and we did not determine that

the company did not act to the best of

its ability, we applied the average

expense incurred on the U.S. sales for

which these expenses were reported as

non-adverse facts available.

We made deductions from the starting

price, where appropriate, for foreign

inland freight, insurance and brokerage,

export duty (CESS), and international

freight in accordance with section

772(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.402(a).

Himalya

We made deductions from the starting

price, where appropriate, for foreign

inland freight, brokerage and handling

expenses, international freight, U.S.

duty, U.S. inland freight, and U.S.

warehousing expenses in accordance

with section 772(c)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.402(a). We also deducted

indirect selling expense, credit expense,

and inventory carrying costs pursuant to

section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.402(b). We made an adjustment for

profit in accordance with section

773(d)(3) of the Act.

At the beginning of the sales

verification, Himalya provided new

information on U.S. brokerage and

handling expenses, which were

previously unreported in the response.

As explained above, section 776(a)(2)(B)

of the Act provides that the Department

will, subject to section 782(d), use the

facts otherwise available in reaching a

determination if a respondent fails to

provide necessary information ‘‘by the

deadlines for submission of the

information or in the form and manner

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1)

and (e) of section 782’’ of the Act.

Himalya neglected to submit this

information in a timely manner. Section

782(c)(1) does not apply because

Himalya did not provide a full

explanation of why it was not able to

submit this information on time.

Moreover, pursuant to section 782(d),

Himalya was specifically informed that

it was required to submit this

information, yet it failed to do so and

failed to provide any explanation for

this deficiency. Finally, under section

782(e), the Department concludes that

Himalya did not act to the best of its

ability in responding to requests for this

information. Where a party has not

acted to the best of its ability to comply

with the Department’s requests for

information, the Department is

authorized to use an inference that is

adverse to the interest of that party,

pursuant to section 776(b). Accordingly,

as partial adverse facts available, we

applied the highest brokerage and

handling expense for any entry of

subject merchandise made by Himalya

during the POR. We recalculated

imputed credit expenses using a single

interest rate for all sales, as Himalya had

calculated this expense using various

interest rates. We also recalculated

Himalya’s home market and U.S.

inventory carrying costs to reflect the

Department’s standard methodology.

Finally, we recalculated the reported

indirect selling expenses incurred in the

United States by collapsing the revenues

and expenses of Himalya’s two affiliated

U.S. importers, rather than using an

average of the two companies’

individual rates, as reported by

Himalya. (See the Himalya Preliminary

Results Calculation Memorandum dated

February 28, 2001, for further detail).

HLL

We made deductions from the starting

price, where appropriate, for foreign

inland freight, foreign brokerage and

handling, export duty, and international

freight in accordance with section

772(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.402(a). We recalculated export duty

using the 0.5% rate reported in the

response.

Techtran

We made deductions from the starting

price, where appropriate, for foreign

inland freight (includes brokerage and

handling), export duty, international

freight, and marine insurance in

accordance with section 772(c)(1) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a). We revised

international freight expenses incurred

on certain sales, based on our

verification findings. (See the Techtran

Preliminary Results Calculation

Memorandum dated February 28, 2001,

for further detail.)

13900 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices

Weikfield

We made deductions from the starting

price, where appropriate, for foreign

inland freight, foreign brokerage and

handling, international freight, CESS,

U.S. duty, and other U.S. transportation

expenses in accordance with section

772(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.402(a). Weikfield reported the perunit expense incurred for CESS, which

is incurred as a percentage of sales

value, on a weight-basis. We

recalculated this expense on a value

basis using the 0.5% rate reported in the

response. We also revised the U.S. duty

and transportation expenses incurred on

certain sales, based on our verification

findings.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating normal value, we

compared the respondents’ 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.

Techtran’s and Weikfield’s aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product was greater than

five percent of their aggregate volume of

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.

Therefore, we determined that the home

market provides a viable basis for

calculating normal value for both

Techtran and Weikfield.

With regard to Agro Dutch, we

determined that the home market was

not viable because Agro Dutch’s

aggregate volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product was less than

five percent of its aggregate volume of

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.

However, we determined that the third

country market of the Netherlands was

viable, in accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Therefore,

pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the

Act, we have used third country sales as

a basis for normal value for Agro Dutch.

Both Himalya and HLL reported that

during the POR they made no home

market sales. Himalya did not make

third country sales during the POR,

while HLL’s sales to third countries

constituted less than five percent of its

U.S. sales. Therefore, we determined

that neither the home market nor any

third country market was a viable basis

for calculating normal value for HLL

and Himalya. As a result, we used

constructed value as the basis for

calculating normal value for these two

respondents, in accordance with section

773(a)(4) of the Act.

Cost of Production Analysis

The Department disregarded certain

sales made by Agro Dutch and HLL in

the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation pursuant to a finding in

that review that sales failed the cost test

(see Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Postponement of Final

Determination: Certain Preserved

Mushrooms from India, 63 FR 41789

(August 5, 1998)). Thus, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act,

there are reasonable grounds to believe

or suspect that respondents Agro Dutch

and HLL made sales in the home market

or third country at prices below the cost

of producing the merchandise in the

current review period. However, in the

instant review, HLL’s third country

market was not viable. See ‘‘Normal

Value’’ section, above. Accordingly, we

cannot perform a cost test with regard

to HLL. In addition, as stated in the

‘‘Background’’ section of this notice,

based on a timely allegation filed by the

petitioners, the Department initiated an

investigation to determine whether

Techtran’s and Weikfield’s home market

sales were made at prices less than the

cost of production. As a result, the

Department initiated investigations to

determine whether the respondents

made home market or third country

sales during the POR at prices below

their COP within the meaning of section

773(b) of the Act.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP on a productspecific basis, based on the sum of the

respondents’ cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for SG&A, interest

expense, and the cost of all expenses

incidental to placing the foreign like

product in a condition packed ready for

shipment in accordance with section

773(b)(3) of the Act.

We relied on COP information

submitted by the respondents, except

for the following adjustments:

Agro Dutch

We revised the general and

administrative (G&A) expense rate

calculation to include certain expenses

that were written off. We adjusted the

cost incurred used as the denominator

in the calculation to exclude those

expenses written off and to account for

the change in work-in-process

inventory.

We revised the interest expense rate

to include interest expenses on working

capital. We increased the denominator

used in this calculation based on the

same adjustments made in calculating

the G&A expense rate. (See February 28,

2001, Calculation Memorandum to Neal

Halper for a discussion of the abovereferenced adjustments).

Techtran

We disallowed Techtran’s

capitalization of all its costs incurred

from the beginning of the POR through

October 13, 1999, and the claimed startup adjustment that was calculated based

on the same period. We revised

Techtran’s reported costs by allowing

Techtran a start-up adjustment only for

the period August 1998 through October

1998.

We adjusted Techtran’s reported cost

of manufacturing (COM) to reflect

differences in its allocation

methodologies from one period versus

the other and to include costs related to

the auditor’s adjustments.

We revised the G&A expense rate

calculation to include the auditor’s

adjustments and capitalized G&A

expenses. We adjusted the cost incurred

used as the denominator in the

calculation to (1) include depreciation

expenses; (2) include capitalized COM;

(3) exclude packing costs; and (4)

account for work-in-process inventory.

We revised the financial expense rate

calculation to include capitalized

interest expense. We increased the

denominator used in this calculation

based on the same adjustments made in

calculating the G&A expense rate. (See

February 28, 2001, Calculation

Memorandum to Neal Halper for a

discussion of the above-referenced

adjustments).

Weikfield

We disallowed Weikfield’s

capitalization of production costs

incurred during the POR by including

the total capitalized amount net of

related depreciation in the reported

costs.

We adjusted Weikfield’s reported

COM to account for the change in the

work-in-process inventory.

We revised the G&A expense rate

calculation to include capitalized G&A

expenses and exclude certain selling

expenses. We adjusted the cost incurred

used as the denominator in the

calculation to include depreciation

expense and exclude antidumping

expenses and the change in work-inprocess inventory.

We revised the financial expense rate

calculation to include capitalized

interest expenses, interest on affiliated

party loans and exchange rate

differences. We made the same

adjustments to the denominator of this

calculation that were made in

calculating the G&A expense rate. (See

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices 13901

February 28, 2001, Calculation

Memorandum to Neal Halper for a

discussion of the above-referenced

adjustments).

B. Test of Home Market Prices

For all respondents except Himalya

and HLL, we compared the weightedaverage, per-unit COP figures for the

POR to home market or third country

sales of the foreign like product, as

required by section 773(b) of the Act, in

order to determine whether these sales

were made at prices below the COP. In

determining whether to disregard home

market or third country sales made at

prices below 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 productspecific basis, we compared the COP,

consisting of the COM, G&A and interest

expenses, to the net home market or

third country prices, less any applicable

movement charges, rebates, discounts,

and direct and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of the

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

twenty percent or more of the

respondent’s sales of a given product

during the POR were at prices less than

the COP, we disregarded the below-cost

sales where such sales were found to be

made at prices which would not permit

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time (in accordance

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

The results of our cost tests for all

three of these companies indicated for

certain home market products, less than

twenty percent of the sales of the model

were at prices below COP. We therefore

retained all sales of these models in our

analysis and used them as the basis for

determining normal value.

Our cost tests also indicated that for

certain other home market products

more than twenty percent of home

market sales within an extended period

of time were at prices below COP and

would not permit the full recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of

the Act, we excluded these below-cost

sales of these models from our analysis

and used the remaining sales as the

basis for determining normal value.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

For Agro Dutch, Techtran, and

Weikfield, we based normal value on

the price at which the foreign like

product is first sold for consumption in

the home market or third country, in the

usual commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade, and at the

same LOT as the export price or CEP, as

defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the

Act.

We reduced normal value for inland

freight, insurance and brokerage, and

early payment and quantity discounts,

where appropriate, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.401.

Agro Dutch reported the per-unit

expense incurred for CESS on its Dutch

sales, which is incurred as a percentage

of sales value, on a weight-basis. We

recalculated this expense on a value

basis using the 0.5% rate reported in the

response.

For comparisons to Agro Dutch’s,

Techtran’s, and Weikfield’s export price

sales, we made a circumstance-of-sale

adjustment, where appropriate, for

differences in credit and commission

expenses pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.410.

Techtran and Weikfield reported an

imputed credit expense on U.S. sales

based on the letter of credit settlement

date. At verification, we found that

these respondents incur actual bank

financing expenses and fees for

discounting the letters of credit issued

on U.S. sales. Accordingly, we have

recalculated the imputed credit expense

and added the bank’s letter of credit fee

based on our verification findings, as

detailed in the February 28, 2001,

Memorandum entitled Weikfield

Preliminary Results Margin Calculation

(Weikfield Margin Memo) and the

February 28, 2001, Techtran Preliminary

Results Calculation Memorandum

(Techtran Calculation Memo).

For these same respondents, the

reported imputed credit expenses on

home market sales were based on

specific periods from shipment to

payment. At verification, we were

unable to support this reporting as

Techtran’s and Weikfield’s customers

generally pay on a line of credit system,

which was not previously described to

the Department (see January 16, 2001,

Weikfield Sales Verification Report at

page 5 and February 2, 2001, Techtran

Sales Verification Report at page 6).

Because we were unable to tie

Techtran’s and Weikfield’s home market

payment methodology to any

information submitted in the

questionnaire responses, we have

disallowed a circumstance-of-sale

adjustment for home market imputed

credit expenses.

Weikfield reported commissions paid

to both affiliated and unaffiliated parties

in the home market. The Department’s

practice is to treat payments to affiliated

parties providing services that relate to

the sale of merchandise as commissions

if they are actual expenditures resulting

from specific sales and are not intracompany transfers. The Department

allows these expenses as direct

deductions to price if they are at arm’s

length and tie directly to sales. See Final

Results of Administrative Review: Large

Newspaper Printing Presses from

Germany, 66 FR 11557 (February 26,

2001), and accompanying Decision

Memorandum at Comment 5. To

establish whether commissions are

made at arm’s-length, the Department

normally compares the commissions

paid to affiliated selling agents to those

paid by the respondent to any

unaffiliated selling agents in the same

market (exporting or U.S.) or in any

third-country market (see Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper

from Finland, France, Germany and the

United Kingdom, 56 FR 56359, 56363

(November 4, 1991)).

In this case, we have no evidence

suggesting that the affiliated party

payments at issue are intra-company

transfers, as they are actual

expenditures tied to specific sales.

Therefore, we are accepting them as

commissions and must determine their

arm’s-length nature in accordance with

our normal practice. As there are no

commissions paid in the U.S. market,

and we have no information on any

commissions paid in third country

markets, the only comparison we can

make is between the two sets of

commissions paid in the home market.

The unaffiliated commissions are paid

at a significantly different rate than the

affiliated commissions, but the

responsibilities of each type of

commissionaire are different, which

may account for the difference in the

commission rates (see sample

commission agreements at Exhibit 5 of

Weikfield’s August 9, 2000, response).

Since we have no other basis to

determine the arm’s-length nature of the

affiliated commissions, for purposes of

the preliminary results, we have

accepted the affiliated commissions to

the extent that the amount paid does not

exceed the rate paid to unaffiliated

commissions.

Weikfield did not report its indirect

selling expenses separately from the

G&A expenses reported with the COP

and constructed value data.

13902 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices

Accordingly, we recalculated the G&A

expenses and calculated an indirect

selling expense for this purpose (see

February 28, 2001, Calculation

Memorandum to Neal Halper and

Weikfield Margin Memo).

We also reduced normal value for

packing costs incurred in the home or

third country market, in accordance

with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i), and

increased normal value to account for

U.S. packing expenses in accordance

with section 773(a)(6)(A). With regard to

Techtran, we revised U.S. and home

market packing costs in accordance with

verification findings. See Techtran

Calculation Memo.

Finally, we made adjustments to

normal value, where appropriate, for

differences in costs attributable to

differences in the physical

characteristics of the merchandise,

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of

the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Calculation of Constructed Value

We calculated constructed value in

accordance with section 773(e) of the

Act, which indicates that constructed

value shall be based on the sum of each

respondent’s cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit

and U.S. packing costs. We made the

same adjustments to constructed value

that were made to COP as described

above for Agro Dutch, Techtran, and

Weikfield.

Because Himalya and HLL had no

viable home or third country market, we

derived SG&A and profit for Himalya

and HLL in accordance with section

773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and the

Statement of Administrative Action

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

103–316, Vol. 1 at 169–171 (SAA). See

19 CFR 351.405(b)(2) (clarifying that

under section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act,

‘‘foreign country’’ means the country in

which the merchandise is produced).

Under this provision, we may use an

amount which reflects SG&A and profit

based on actual amounts incurred or

realized by other investigated

companies on home market sales in the

ordinary course of trade of the foreign

like product. See section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii)

of the Act. As a result, we calculated

Himalya’s and HLL’s SG&A and profit

as a weighted average of the SG&A and

profit amounts incurred on home

market sales by Techtran and Weikfield

during the cost reporting period. For

further details see Memorandum to Neal

Halper, dated February 28, 2001, for

Himalya and HLL.

Himalya

We relied on the constructed value

data submitted by Himalya, except for

the following adjustments:

We revised the production quantities

for the different can types to correct for

reporting errors made by Himalya.

We revised the direct material cost to

reflect the cost of materials consumed

during the entire POR.

We revised Himalya’s allocation of

variable and fixed costs to products by

revising the fixed asset base used in the

allocation formula.

We adjusted Himalya’s reported COM

to account for the change in work-inprocess inventory.

We disallowed the start-up

adjustment claimed by Himalya. (See

the February 28, 2001, Calculation

Memorandum from Laurens Van Houten

to Neal Halper for a discussion of the

above-referenced adjustments.)

HLL

For HLL we have requested, but will

not receive in time for the preliminary

results, the reconciliation of the

submitted costs to the audited financial

statements costs. As stated by the

Department in Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate From Mexico: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 64 FR 76, 78,

(January 4, 1999) ‘‘{a}lthough the format

of the reconciliation of submitted costs

to actual financial statement costs

depends greatly on the nature of the

accounting records maintained by the

respondent, the reconciliation

represents the starting point of a cost

response because it assures the

Department that the respondent has

accounted for all costs before allocating

those costs to individual products.’’

Therefore, due to the critical nature of

this reconciliation, it is imperative that

HLL provide the requested information.

In order to minimize the burden placed

on the respondent, in a supplemental

questionnaire we agreed to allow HLL to

provide the cost reconciliation for one

fiscal year rather than for two fiscal

years. In accordance with section 776

and 782 of the Act, failure to provide

this information timely may result in

the use of facts available for the final

results.

Price-to-Constructed Value

Comparisons

For Himalya and HLL, we based

normal value on constructed value, in

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

Act. For comparisons to HLL’s export

price sales, and in those instances

where we compared Agro Dutch’s,

Techtran’s and Weikfield’s export prices

to constructed value, we made

circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustments

by deducting from constructed value the

weighted-average home market direct

selling expenses and adding the U.S.

direct selling expenses, in accordance

with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and

section 19 CFR 351.410. For

comparisons to Himalya’s CEP sales, we

also deducted credit expenses from

normal value.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with section 773A of the Act

using the rates posted at

www.ita.doc.gov. With respect to Agro

Dutch, we have applied the highest

exchange rate during the POR for all

currency conversions involving certain

U.S. sales, as facts available. See

‘‘Export Price/Constructed Export Price’’

section, above.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

weighted-average dumping margins for

the period August 5, 1998, through

January 31, 2000, are as follows:

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent

margin

Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd ................... 1 0.03

Himalya International, Ltd ............... 26.34

Hindustan Lever, Ltd ...................... 42.08

Techtran Agro Industries Limited ... 66.24

Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd .......... 26.44

1 De minimus.

We will disclose the calculations used

in our analysis to parties to this

proceeding within five days of the

publication date of this notice. See 19

CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party

may request a hearing within 30 days of

publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If

requested, a hearing will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Issues raised in the hearing will be

limited to those raised in the respective

case briefs. Case briefs from interested

parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the

issues raised in the respective case

briefs, may be submitted not later than

30 days and 37 days, respectively, from

the date of publication of these

preliminary results. See 19 CFR

351.309(c) and (d). Parties who submit

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

each argument (1) a statement of the

issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. Parties are also encouraged to

provide a summary of the arguments not

to exceed five pages and a table of

statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices 13903

1 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), PT Dieng

Djaya and PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa were

determined to be affiliated companies in the

original less-than-fair-value investigation, and

therefore the two companies submitted a combined

review request and questionnaire response.

2See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain

Preserved Mushroom from Indonesia, 64 FR 8310

(February 19, 1999).

The Department will issue the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any written briefs, not

later than 120 days after the date of

publication of this notice.

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, Room B–099,

within 30 days of the date of 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 issues to be

discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of this review. The final

results of this review shall be the basis

for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the final results of this

review and for future deposits of

estimated duties. We will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries covered

by this review if any importer-specific

assessment rate calculated in the final

results of this review is above de

minimis (i.e., 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)). For

assessment purposes, we intend to

calculate importer-specific assessment

rates for the subject merchandise by

aggregating the dumping margins

calculated for all U.S. sales examined

and dividing this amount by the total

entered value of the sales examined.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be those established in

the final results of this review, except if

the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and

therefore, de minimis within the

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(C)(1), in

which case the cash deposit rate will be

zero; (2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for

the most recent period; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a prior review, or the original

LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 11.30

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

Notification to Importers

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 published in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.221. Effective January 20, 2001,

Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the

duties of the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

Dated: February 28, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–5620 Filed 3–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–560–802]

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From

Indonesia: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by

three manufacturers/exporters of the

subject merchandise: PT Dieng Djaya

and PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa,1 PT

Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp.,

and PT Zeta Agro Corporation, and by

The Pillsbury Company, an importer of

the merchandise under review, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

preserved mushrooms from Indonesia.

The periods of reviews are August 5,

1998, through January 31, 2000, for PT

Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp. and

PT Zeta Agro Corporation, and

December 31, 1998 through January 31,

2000, for PT Dieng Djaya and PT Surya

Jaya Abadi Perkasa 2.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below normal value.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct the Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

all appropriate entries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Sophie E. Castro,

Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I,

Import Administration-Room B–099,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4136 or (202) 482–0588,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 U.S. Department of Commerce’s

(the Department’s) regulations are to 19

CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

On December 31, 1998, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (63 FR 72268), the final

affirmative antidumping duty

determination of sales at less than fair

value (LTFV) on certain preserved

mushrooms from Indonesia. We

published an antidumping duty order

on February 19, 1999 (64 FR 8310).

On February 14, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice advising of the opportunity to