Notices. Notice of revocation of the antidumping duty finding on melamine in crystal form from Japan

8,326 words·~38 min read·/register/2004/10/21/04-23579

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-056] Melamine in Crystal Form From Japan: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Finding AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of revocation of the antidumping duty finding on melamine in crystal form from Japan. SUMMARY: On August 2, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty finding on melamine in crystal form from Japan. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews,* 69 FR 46134 (August 2, 2004).

Because no domestic party responded to the sunset review notice of initiation by the applicable deadline, the Department is revoking the antidumping duty finding on melamine in crystal form from Japan. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5050. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 2, 1977, the Treasury Department published in the **Federal Register** its antidumping duty finding on melamine in crystal form from Japan. *See* 42 FR 6866 (February 2, 1977). On September 1, 1999, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4), the Department published in the **Federal Register** notice of continuation of the antidumping duty finding following the first sunset review. *See Continuation of Antidumping Duty Finding: Melamine from Japan,* 64 FR 47764 (September 1, 1999). On August 2, 2004, the Department initiated a second sunset review of this finding pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the “Act”) and 19 CFR part 351, in general. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews,* 69 FR 46134 (August 2, 2004). As a courtesy to interested parties, the Department sent letters, via certified and registered mail, to each party listed on the Department's most current service list for this proceeding to inform them of the automatic initiation of a sunset review of this finding. We received no response from the domestic industry by the deadline date. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). As a result, the Department determined that no domestic party intends to participate in the sunset review. On August 23, 2004, the Department notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in writing that we intended to issue a final determination revoking this antidumping duty finding. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B). Scope This Treasury Finding covers melamine in crystal form, which is a fine white crystalline powder used to manufacture melamine formaldehyde resins, and is currently classifiable under item 2933.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive. Determination To Revoke Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested party responds to the notice of initiation, the Department shall issue a final determination, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, revoking the finding. Because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent to participate or a substantive response, the Department finds that no domestic interested party is participating in this review. Therefore, we are revoking this antidumping duty finding effective September 1, 2004, the fifth anniversary of the date of the determination to continue the finding, consistent with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i) and section 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act. Effective Date of Revocation Pursuant to sections 751(c)(3)(A) and 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this finding entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after September 1, 2004. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this finding and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 15, 2004. Jeffrey A. May, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2791 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-501] Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty order on natural bristle paint brushes and brush heads from the People's Republic of China. SUMMARY: On May 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on natural bristle paint brushes and brush heads (“natural paint brushes”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the *Final Results of Review* section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary E. Sadler, Esq., Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4340. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 3, 2004, the Department published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on natural paint brushes from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 69 FR 24118 (May 3, 2004). The Department received the Notice of Intent to Participate from the domestic interested parties, the Paint Applicator Division of the American Brush Manufacturers Association and its participating member companies: Shur-Line, Bestt Liebco, Wooster Brush Company, Purdy Corporation, True Value Manufacturing, and Elder & Jenks, Inc. (collectively “the domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's Regulations (“Sunset Regulations”). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and

(E)of the Act, as domestic manufacturers of paint brushes and a trade association whose majority of members manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic-like product in the United States. We received complete substantive responses only from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no responses from the respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this order. Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads from the PRC. Excluded from the order are paintbrushes and brush heads with a blend of 40 percent natural bristles and 60 percent synthetic filaments. The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under item 9603.40.40.40 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Jeffrey A. May, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 15, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* , under the heading “October 2004.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Reviews We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on natural paint brushes from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted average margin (percent) Hebei Animal By-Products Import/Export Corp. 351.92 Hunan Provincial Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import/Export Corp. 351.92 Peace Target, Inc. 351.92 PRC-wide 351.92 We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 15, 2004. Jeffrey A. May, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2788 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-046] Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty changed circumstances review. SUMMARY: On March 1, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty finding on polychloroprene rubber

(PR)from Japan to determine whether Showa Denko K.K.

(SDK)is the successor-in-interest company to the joint venture of Showa DDE Manufacturing K.K.

(SDEM)and DDE Japan Kabushiki Kaisha (DDE Japan) (collectively, SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture). *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan,* 69 FR 9586 (March 1, 2004) *(Notice of Initiation).* We have preliminarily determined that SDK is not the successor-in-interest to the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture, for purposes of determining antidumping liability in this proceeding. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-4114. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 6, 1973, the Department of Treasury published in the **Federal Register** (38 FR 33593) the antidumping finding on PR from Japan. On January 14, 2004, SDK submitted a letter stating that it is the successor-in-interest to the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture and, as such, entitled to receive the same antidumping duty treatment previously accorded to the joint venture ( *i.e.* , zero cash deposit). *See Notice of Final Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan,* 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002), *(Changed Circumstances).* In that same letter, SDK explained that on November 1, 2002, the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture was dissolved. Prior to the joint venture's dissolution, SDK and DuPont Dow Elastomers L.L.C. (DuPont) each owned 50 percent of the joint venture. SDK, therefore, requested that the Department conduct an expedited changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty finding on PR from Japan pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act (the Act), as amended, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). However, because the submitted record supporting SDK's claims was deficient, the Department found that an expedited review was impracticable and, on March 1, 2004, issued a *Notice of Initiation* without the preliminary results. In response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire, on March 10 and 19, 2004, SDK provided the Department with supplemental questionnaire responses. Additionally, on February 4 and May 3, 2004, DuPont, a U.S. producer of PR and the petitioner in this proceeding, notified the Department that it opposes SDK's request to be considered the successor-in-interest to the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture. In particular, DuPont argued that differences between the corporate structures, distribution channels, price structure, and customer base preclude SDK from being considered the successor-in-interest to the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture. From August 25 through August 27, 2004, the Department conducted a verification of information in connection with this changed circumstances review at SDK's offices in Kawasaki, Japan. On September 20, 2004, the Department issued its Verification Report. *See* Memorandum from Zev Primor to the File “Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review of Polychloroprene Rubber

(PR)from Japan: Verification Report for Showa Denko K.K.

(SDK)Regarding Successorship,” September 20, 2004, (Verification Report). Scope of Review Imports covered by this review are shipments of PR, an oil resistant synthetic rubber also known as polymerized chlorobutadiene or neoprene, currently classifiable under items 4002.42.00, 4002.49.00, 4003.00.00, 4462.15.21, and 4462.00.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review In submissions to the Department dated January 14, 2004, and March 10 and March 19, 2004, SDK advised the Department that on November 1, 2002, the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture was dissolved. SDEM was the manufacturing arm of the joint venture, while DDE Japan was its marketing and selling arm. When the joint venture was dissolved, DuPont sold its interest in SDEM to SDK. SDK, in turn, sold its interest in DDE Japan to DuPont. As a result of those interest transfers, SDK became the sole owner of SDEM and DuPont became the sole owner of DDE Japan. On the same date, November 1, 2002, SDEM was renamed Showa Denko Elastomers (SDEL), while maintaining the original production facility. SDK assumed the marketing and selling end of SDEL's business. On January 1, 2004, SDK merged with its wholly-owned subsidiary SDEL, thus creating a single corporate entity by the name of SDK. Analysis In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department examines a number of factors, including, but not limited to, changes in:

(1)Management;

(2)customer base;

(3)production facilities; and

(4)supplier relationships. *See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review,* 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) *(Canadian Brass); Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Certain Pasta from Turkey,* 69 FR 1280 (January 8, 2004). While none of these factors alone will necessarily be dispositive, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if—considering all of the factors together—the new company's resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. *See, e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review,* 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994), and *Canadian Brass,* 57 FR 20460. In other words, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company essentially operates as the same business entity as the former company, the Department will assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. Based on our review of the evidence provided by SDK and DuPont, we preliminarily determine that SDK is not the successor-in-interest to the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture. While record evidence indicates that SDK retained the same production facility and suppliers as the joint venture entity ( *see* Verification Report, at 10, and Exhibits 10, 14), the record evidence also indicates that SDK's management composition and customer base changed significantly from that of the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture. 1. Customer Base A. Selling and Marketing Operations Under the joint venture arrangement, DDE Japan was solely responsible for developing and maintaining the customer base, planning future sales and marketing PR to customers in Japan and the United States. In contrast, SDEM's role in the joint venture was to manufacture PR and supply it to DDE Japan once DDE Japan secured an order. For example, SDK's officials stated at verification that SDEM “did not maintain contact with the U.S. customers.” *See* Verification Report, at 8. Moreover, the record in this case suggests that to compensate for the lack of a distribution channel in the United States after the dissolution of the joint venture, SDK established its own subsidiary, Showa Denko America (SDA), in order to develop new business in the United States. According to the record, SDA purchases PR from SDK and resells it to the end-user customers in the United States. In consultation with SDK, SDA sets the prices and arranges for delivery of PR to such customers. *See* SDK's submission dated March 10, 2004, at 16. Previously under the joint venture arrangement, DDE Japan handled all of these functions. Consequently, SDK is operating a different business now than that which existed before the dissolution of the joint venture, as SDK must now assume all the selling, marketing and credit risks previously borne by its joint venture partner, DDE Japan. *See* Submission by DuPont, at 3 (May 3, 2004). B. Price Structure With regard to the price structure, DDE Japan negotiated all prices with the unaffiliated customers. Under the terms of the joint venture arrangement, SDEM was guaranteed a fixed transfer price regardless of the price obtained by DDE Japan in the relevant market. In the post-dissolution period, SDK has to negotiate its own prices in the relevant markets and is no longer guaranteed a profit on each transaction. The Department considers this to be a significant change in the competitive environment for SDK. C. Customer Base As mentioned above, upon the loss of its joint venture marketing arm, DDE Japan, SDK had to develop its own customer base in both the United States and in Japan. At verification, we determined that a significant number of the joint venture's former customers were no longer customers of SDK. *See* Verification Report, at 8 and Exhibit 11. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that the customer base changed significantly since the dissolution of the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture. 2. Management A. Corporate Structure The parent companies, SDK and DuPont, initially formed the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture through a stock exchange, whereby each parent company purchased shares in the other company's subsidiary. As noted above, SDK and DuPont shared ownership of the joint venture equally ( *i.e.* , a 50/50 split). The record shows that on November 1, 2002, the corporate structure of the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture changed significantly. Upon dissolution, each parent company sold to the other parent company its share in that company's subsidiary. The former joint venture companies were then absorbed by their respective parent companies. As explained above, as a result of those interest transfers, SDK became the sole owner of SDEM, which it in turn absorbed. Because SDEM comprised the production arm of the former joint venture, SDK had to create its own PR marketing and selling division following the dissolution. Consequently, the Department preliminarily views SDK's current corporate structure as significantly different from the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture. B. Management Composition The record evidence also shows that the management structure of the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture resulted was significantly different from SDK's management structure. None of the senior managers employed by the DDE Japan office accepted positions with SDK after the dissolution of the joint venture. Only a very small number of former supervisors employed by DDE Japan are now employed by SDK. Further, the composition of the board of directors governing the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture differed significantly from that of SDK. Prior to the creation of the joint venture, each of the underlying companies, SDEM and DDE Japan, had its own board of directors governing its operations. This management arrangement continued throughout the course of the joint venture arrangement. Upon dissolution of the joint venture, with one exception, the board of directors remained with their respective joint venture partner. Therefore, the Department considers the SDK board of directors to be significantly different from the joint venture board structure. *See* Verification Report, at Exhibit 9. Thus, the record evidence discloses that SDK's management composition varies significantly from that of the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture entity. Conclusion In sum, we preliminarily find that SDK has not presented evidence to establish a *prima facie* case of its successorship status. The dissolution of the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture precipitated significant changes to the company ultimately absorbed by SDK. While SDK absorbed the joint venture's production facility and retained the venture's supplier base, SDK's management and corporate structure, selling and marketing operations, customer base, and price structure are significantly different from those of the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture. Therefore, given the totality of the considered factors, the record evidence demonstrates that SDK is a new entity that operates in significantly different manner from its predecessor, the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that SDK should not be given the same antidumping duty treatment as the joint venture, *i.e.* , zero percent antidumping duty cash deposit rate. Instead, SDK, as a new entity, should continue to be assigned as its cash deposit rate the “all others” rate, which in this proceeding is 55 percent. The cash deposit determination from this changed circumstances review will apply to all entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review. *See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review,* 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). This deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review in which SDK participates. Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 15 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 7 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 12 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument

(1)a statement of the issue;

(2)a brief summary of the argument; and

(3)a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if the parties submitting written comments would provide the Department with an additional electronic copy of the public comments. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e) of the Department's regulations, we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review not later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated. This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(I)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(I) of the Department's regulations. Dated: October 15, 2004. Jeffrey A. May, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2786 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-423-808, A-475-822, A-580-831] Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Italy, and the Republic of Korea; Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of expedited sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders of stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium, Italy, and Korea; final results. SUMMARY: On April 1, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel plate in coils (“SSPC”) from Belgium, Italy, and the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). On the basis of a Notice of Intent to Participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review. As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the *Final Results of Review* section of to this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary E. Sadler, Esq., Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4340. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 1, 2004, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, Italy, and Korea. 1 On April 16, 2004, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from Allegheny Ludlum Corp., North American Stainless, and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively “domestic interested parties”) within the deadline specified in section 315.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and

(D)of the Act, as U.S. producers of SSPC and a certified union whose workers are engaged in the production of SSPC. On May 3, 2004, the Department received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. We did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties to this proceeding, except a participation waiver from Ugine & ALZ Belgium. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department determined to conduct expedited reviews of these orders. 1 *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews,* 69 FR 17129 (April 1, 2004) ( *”Initiation Notice”* ). Scope of the Orders The merchandise subject to these orders is stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope of these orders are the following:

(1)Plate not in coils,

(2)plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,

(3)sheet and strip, and

(4)flat bars. The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05, 7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.55, 7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 8, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn,* under the heading “October 2004.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Reviews We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, Italy, and Korea would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted Average Margin (percent) *Belgium* Ugine & ALZ Belgium 9.86 All Others 9.86 *Italy* Thyssen Krupp Acciai Speciali Terni, S.A. 45.09 All Others 39.69 *Korea* POSCO 6.08 All Others 6.08 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 13, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2789 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-122-848] Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review: Hard Red Spring Wheat From Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of countervailing duty expedited review. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an expedited review of the countervailing duty order on hard red spring wheat from Canada for the period August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002. The Department preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were not provided to Richelain Farms. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel J. Alexy or Stephen Cho, AD/CVD Operations Office I, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1540 or

(202)482-3798. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petitioner The petitioner is the North Dakota Wheat Commission, one of the participating petitioners in the investigation. Period of Review The period of review for this expedited review is the same period as the investigation: August 1, 2001, to July 31, 2002, which coincides with the fiscal year of the Canadian Wheat Board (“CWB”). *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2); 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(i). Background On September 5, 2003, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada* (68 FR 52747), and on October 23, 2003, the Department published the countervailing duty order on Hard Red Spring Wheat (“HRSW”) (68 FR 60642). On November 18, 2003, the Department received a request from Richelain Farms (“Richelain”) to conduct an expedited review of the HRSW countervailing duty order. Richelain, a company that was not selected for individual examination during the investigation, made this request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(k). On December 31, 2003, the Department initiated the expedited review. *Hard Red Spring Wheat From Canada: Initiation of Expedited Review of the Countervailing Duty Order* (“Initiation Notice”) (68 FR 75490). We sent questionnaires to Richelain Farms and the Government of Canada on February 13, 2004. We received questionnaire responses from Richelain and the Government of Canada on March 25, 2004. On June 3 and 4, and August 26, 2004, we verified Richelain's questionnaire responses. On June 24, 2004, the Department postponed the deadline for the preliminary determination. *See Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Countervailing Duty Expedited Review,* 69 FR 35329. Scope of Review For purposes of this expedited review, the products covered are all varieties of hard red spring (“HRSW”) wheat from Canada. This includes, but is not limited to, varieties commonly referred to as Canada Western Red Spring, Canada Western Extra Strong, and Canada Prairie Spring Red. The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under the following *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 1001.90.10.00, 1001.90.20.05, 1001.90.20.11, 1001.90.20.12, 1001.90.20.13, 1001.90.20.14, 1001.90.20.16, 1001.90.20.19, 1001.90.20.21, 1001.90.20.22, 1001.90.20.23, 1001.90.20.24, 1001.90.20.26, 1001.90.20.29, 1001.90.20.35, and 1001.90.20.96. This investigation does not cover imports of wheat that enter under the subheadings 1001.90.10.00 and 1001.90.20.96 that are not classifiable as hard red spring wheat. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Verification In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iv), we verified information submitted by respondent Richelain. *See Verification of Richelain Farms in the Countervailing Duty Expedited Review of Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada* dated October 8, 2004 (“ *Verification Report* ”). This verification was concluded on August 26, 2004, in Quebec, Canada. Preliminary Results of Expedited Review The Canadian Wheat Board (“CWB”) represents Western Canadian wheat producers who want to sell their wheat in the global wheat market. The CWB enjoys certain powers and rights similar to those of government agencies; under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the CWB is a single-desk seller of all “Western Division” grain. According to the Canada Transportation Act, “Western Division” means the part of Canada lying west of the meridian passing through the eastern boundary of the City of Thunder Bay, including the whole of the Province of Manitoba. In the investigation, we determined that the CWB benefitted from two countervailable subsidies programs: “Provision of Government-Owned and Leased Railcars” and “Comprehensive Financial Risk Coverage: The Borrowing, Lending, and Initial Payment Guarantees.” In its questionnaire response, Richelain, which is located in Quebec, reported that it never benefitted from the subsidies programs found countervailable in the investigation. Furthermore, Richelain reported that it has never purchased or exported CWB wheat, and that it has no business relationship with the CWB. At verification, the Department did not find any evidence that Richelain received subsidies from the programs found countervailable in the investigation. The Department also found no indication of any relationship between Richelain and the CWB, or that Richelain exported CWB-sourced wheat to the United States. *See Verification Report.* Accordingly, the Department preliminarily determines that Richelain has not benefitted from any of the investigated subsidies. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), the calculated individual subsidy rate for Richelain, the only respondent subject to this expedited review, is zero. Accordingly, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iv), we preliminarily determine that Richelain should be excluded from the countervailing duty order. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs must be received by the Department within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be received 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 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. 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 date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties that seek access to business proprietary information must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. The Department will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs in the final results of this expedited review. This expedited review and notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677(f)(i)). Dated: October 15, 2004. Jeffrey A. May, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2787 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-475-823] Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Italy; Preliminary Results of the Full Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: stainless steel plate in coils from Italy. SUMMARY: On April 1, 2004, the Department initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on stainless steel plate in coils (“SSPC”) from Italy pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews,* 69 FR 17129 (April 1, 2004). On the basis of substantive responses filed by domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting a full sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidies at the levels indicated in the *Preliminary Results of Review* section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary Sadler, Esq., Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4340. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Department's Regulations The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3— *Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin,* 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) *(“Policy Bulletin”)* . Background On April 1, 2004, the Department initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on SSPC from Italy pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews,* 69 FR 17129 (April 1, 2004). The Department received a notice of intent to participate from Allegheny Ludlum Corp. (“Allegheny Ludlum”), North America Stainless (“NAS”), and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (“USWA”), the domestic interested parties (collectively “domestic interested parties”), within the applicable deadline (April 16, 2004) specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the *Sunset Regulations* . *See* Response of the Domestic Interested Parties at 2, May 3, 2004 (“Domestic Response”). All domestic interested parties claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) and

(D)of the Act, as a U.S. producer of the domestic like product or a certified union whose workers are engaged in the production of the subject merchandise in the United States. Domestic Response. The USWA was a petitioner in the investigation and has been involved in this proceeding since its inception. *Id.* at 6. Armo, Inc., J&L Specialty Steels, Inc., Lukens Inc., were also petitioners in the original investigation but are either no longer producers of subject merchandise or are scheduled to cease production of SSPC within in this month. *Id.* According to the domestic parties of this review, two unions, Butler Armco Independent Union and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, that were original petitioners are not participating in this sunset review because very few workers at these unions are engaged in the production of SSPC in the United States. *Id.* at 7. The domestic interested parties have participated as a group at various segments of this order. *Id.* The Department received a complete substantive response to the notice of initiation on behalf of three respondent interested parties: the Government of Italy (“GOI”), the Delegation of the European Commission (“EC”), and TKAST. On May 3, 2004, we received substantive responses from all three respondent interested parties expressing their willingness to participate in this review as the authority responsible for defending the interest of the Member States of the European Union. *See* Responses of the GOI (unpaginated), May 3, 2004, (“GOI Response”); EC (unpaginated), April 30, 2004, (“EC Response”); and TKAST, May 3, 2004 (“TKAST Response”) at 2. All respondent interested parties note that they have in the past participated in this proceeding. On May 3, 2004, we received a substantive response from TKAST, a foreign producer and exporter of the subject merchandise as well as the respondent interested party under section 771(9)(A) of the Act, expressing its willingness to participate in this review as well as the Section 129 review. *See* TKAST Response at 2. On May 3, 2004, we received a complete substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in the Department's Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). *See* Domestic Response. We received rebuttal comments from the domestic interested parties on May 10, 2004. On June 10, 2004, pursuant to section 351.309(e)(ii), TKAST filed comments on the Department's adequacy determination stating that the Department's determination of respondents' inadequacy was incorrect and should be reconsidered. *See* Letter of TKAST, Stainless Steel Plate from Italy (Sunset): Adequacy of Responses (June 10, 2004). On June 10, 2004, Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless and the United Steelworkers of America, petitioners in this case, filed comments arguing that the Department's adequacy determination was correct and that the expedited review is warranted. *See* Letter of Domestic Interested Parties, Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, Canada, Italy, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan: Five Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders (June 10, 2004). In a sunset review, the Department normally will conclude that there is adequate response to conduct a full sunset review where respondent interested parties account for more than 50 percent, by volume, of total exports of subject merchandise to the United States. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A). TKAST accounted for more than the 50 percent threshold that the Department normally considers to be an adequate response under 19 CFR section 351.218(e)(I)(ii)(A). On July 13, 2004, the Department determined that the responses by TKAST, the only respondent company in this review, the GOI, and the EC provided an adequate basis for a full review. *See* Memorandum for James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Re: Sunset Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Italy; Adequacy of Respondent Interested Party Response to the Notice of Initiation, July 13, 2004. Therefore, the Department is conducting a full sunset review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(I). Scope of Review The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope of these orders are the following:

(1)Plate not in coils,

(2)plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,

(3)sheet and strip, and

(4)flat bars. In addition, certain cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is also excluded from the scope of this order. The excluded cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is defined as that merchandise which meets the physical characteristics described above that has undergone a cold-reduction process that reduced the thickness of the steel by 25 percent or more, and has been annealed and pickled after this cold reduction process. The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05, 7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.55, 7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the substantive responses and rebuttals by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Jeffrey A. May, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 15, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the accompanying Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and the net subsidy likely to prevail were the order revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn,* under the heading “Italy.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Preliminary Results of Review The Department notes that on November 7, 2003, the U.S. Trade Representative requested the Department, pursuant to section 129(b)(4) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, to implement the determination in the Section 129 Memo. *See Notice of Implementation Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Steel Products From the European Communities,* 68 FR 64858, (November 17, 2003). Accordingly, the Department revised the cash deposit rates for TKAST and “all others” to reflect the impact that privatization had on non-recurring, allocable subsidies for the countervailing duty order on SSPC from Italy. *Id.* We, therefore, revised the net subsidy rates for TKAST to 1.62 percent and all others to 1.61 percent. We preliminarily determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on SSPC from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the rate listed below: Producers/Exporters Net countervailable subsidy (percent) TKAST 0.80 All Others 1.61 Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(i). Any hearing, if requested, will be held on December 22, 2004. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than December 13, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than December 20, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(I). The Department will issue a notice of final results of this sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such briefs, not later than February 25, 2005. This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 15, 2004. Jeffrey A. May, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2790 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of issuance of an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review, Application No. 84-15A12. SUMMARY: On October 14, 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to Northwest Fruit Exporters (“NFE”). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey C. Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration,

(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2003). Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the U.S. Department of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the **Federal Register** . Under section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous. Description of Amended Certificate Export Trade Certificate of Review No. 84-00012, was issued to NFE on June 11, 1984 (49 FR 24581, June 14, 1984) and previously amended on May 2, 1988 (53 FR 16306, May 6, 1988); September 21, 1988 (53 FR 37628, September 27, 1988); September 20, 1989 (54 FR 39454, September 26, 1989); November 19, 1992 (57 FR 55510, November 25, 1992); August 16, 1994 (59 FR 43093, August 22, 1994); November 4, 1996 (61 FR 57850, November 8, 1996); October 22, 1997 (62 FR 55783, October 28, 1997); November 2, 1998 (63 FR 60304, November 9, 1998); October 20, 1999 (64 FR 57438, October 25, 1999); October 16, 2000 (65 FR 63567, October 24, 2000); October 5, 2001 (66 FR 52111, October 12, 2001); October 3, 2002 (67 FR 62957, October 9, 2002); and September 16, 2003 (68 FR 54893, September 19, 2003). NFE's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to: 1. Add each of the following companies as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): John's Farm LLC, Brewster, Washington; Pride Packing Company, Wapato, Washington; and Sage Processing LLC, Wapato & Zillah, Washington; 2. Delete the following companies as “Members” of the Certificate: Apple Country, Inc., Wapato, Washington; Carlson Orchards, Inc., Yakima, Washington; Jenks Bros. Cold Storage & Packing, Royal City, Washington; J.C. Watson Co., Parma, Idaho; and Roy Farms, Moxee, Washington; and 3. Change the listing of the following Members: “Brewster Heights Packing, Brewster, Washington” to the new listing “Brewster Heights Packing & Orchards, LP, Brewster, Washington”; and “Chelan Fruit Company, Chelan, Washington” to the new listing “Chelan Fruit Cooperative, Chelan, Washington”. The effective date of the amended certificate is July 14, 2004. A copy of the amended certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Dated: October 15, 2004. Jeffrey C. Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. 04-23579 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 15

Traces to 15 documents

CFR