61786 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Notices 

of the beneficiaries of their specific 

programs. This information is used by 

the RBS, RHS, RUS, and FSA for 

compliance review and monitoring 

purposes for Title VI. 

b. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1968 (as amended) (‘‘Title VIII’’). 

Section 808a of Title VIII (42 U.S.C. 

3608a (1988)), in pertinent part, requires 

the Secretary of Agriculture to collect 

racial and ethnic data on beneficiaries 

and recipients of USDA’s housing 

programs. Furthermore, the 

implementing regulations issued by the 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) and adopted by the 

RBS, RHS, RUS, and FSA, requires 

recipients and other participants in 

RHS’s housing programs affirmatively to 

further fair housing by providing 

housing, and the opportunity to acquire 

housing in a non-discriminatory 

fashion. One way to demonstrate 

compliance with Title VIII is to prepare 

Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing 

Plans, and to collect and maintain data 

to reflect compliance with the 

requirements of that plan. Furthermore, 

under the Memorandum of 

Understanding between HUD and 

USDA, many complaints of fair housing 

violations by USDA recipients will be 

processed by HUD. The collection and 

maintenance of this data will assist in 

the enforcement effort. 

c. Executive Order 11246. The 

implementing regulations issued by the 

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), and 

adopted by the RBS, RHS, RUS, and 

FSA, require recipients of federally 

assisted construction contracts of 

$10,000 or more to maintain goals for 

hiring minorities and females, and to 

submit employment utilization reports 

to the DOL’s Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs. 

The information collected and 

maintained by the recipients of certain 

programs from RBS, RHS, RUS, and 

FSA is used internally by these agencies 

for monitoring compliance with the 

civil rights laws and regulations. This 

information is made available to USDA 

officials, officials of other Federal 

agencies, and to Congress for reporting 

purposes. Without the required 

information, RBS, RHS, RUS, FSA and 

its recipients will lack the necessary 

documentation to demonstrate that their 

programs are being administered in a 

nondiscriminatory manner, and in full 

compliance with the civil rights laws. In 

addition, the RBS, RHS, RUS, FSA, and 

their recipients would be vulnerable in 

lawsuits alleging discrimination in the 

affected programs of these agencies, and 

would be without appropriate data and 

documentation to defend themselves by 

demonstrating that services and benefits 

are being provided to beneficiaries on 

an equal opportunity basis. 

Estimate of Burden: The public 

reporting burden for this collection of 

information is estimated to average 5.41 

hours per response. 

Respondents: Recipients of RBS, RHS, 

RUS, and FSA’s Federal financial 

assistance, loan, and loan guarantee 

programs. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

54,653. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1.99. 

Estimated Number of Responses:

108,534. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 587,568. 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Tracy Givelekian, 

Regulations and Paperwork 

Management Branch, Support Services 

Division, at (202) 692–0039. 

Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Rural 

Development, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Agencies’

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments may be sent to Tracy 

Givelekian, Regulations and Paperwork 

Management Branch, Support Services 

Division, Rural Development U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Ag Box 

0742, Washington, DC 20250–0742. All 

responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record.

Dated: October 13, 2004. 

Gilbert G. Gonzalez, 

Acting Under Secretary, Rural Development.

Dated: October 13, 2004. 

J.B. Penn, 

Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign 

Agricultural Services.

[FR Doc. 04–23578 Filed 10–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Bridger-Teton National Forest—

Pinedale Ranger District; Wyoming; 

Moose-Gypsum Environmental Impact 

Statement

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service proposes a 

number of project actions within the 

Moose-Gypsum Project Area. These 

actions are designed to move these areas 

closer to the desired Future Conditions 

as described in the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest’s Land and Resource 

Management Plan. The Pinedale Ranger 

District is proposing a 1,500-acre timber 

harvest in conifer stands; 1,100 acres of 

mechanical aspen stand improvement 

treatments; 600 acres of Wildland/Urban 

Interface fuels treatments; 29,000 acres 

of sage/grass/aspen treatments to be 

accomplished primarily with prescribed 

burning and possibly with the use of an 

herbicide sage-reduction treatment on 

approximately 8,000 acres. Watershed 

restoration projects, such as the 

replacement of storm damaged culverts 

and rehabilitation of damaged stream 

banks on the Green River are also 

projects included in this proposal. 

Recreation project improvements 

included as a part of this analysis are a 

rerouting of the district’s snowmobile 

trail around the elk winter feed ground, 

the development of a dispersed 

campsite management plan, and new 

trailhead design and reconstruction. 

Road management improvements, 

including the refinement of the existing 

travel plan to consider All Terrain 

Vehicle routes and wilderness trespass 

issues, the obliteration and 

rehabilitation of a roadbed within the 

Wilderness, and an upgrade of the 

Green River Lakes Road to a higher 

standard are also proposed for analysis 

in this environmental impact statement.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 

November 12, 2004. The draft 

environmental impact statement is 

expected May 2005, and the final 

environmental impact statement is 

expected October 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Craig Trulock, District Ranger, Pinedale 

Ranger District, P.O. Box 220, Pinedale, 

Wyoming 82941. Electronic comments 

may be sent to; comments-intermtnbridger-teton-pinedale@fs.fed.us with 

the subject line ‘‘Moose-Gypsum EIS.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig Trulock, District Ranger, Pinedale

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Notices 61787

Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National 

Forest, U.S. Forest Service 307–367–

4326.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Upper 

Green River Watershed is approximately 

25 miles north of Pinedale, Wyoming, in 

the Green River drainage, on the west 

slope of the Wind River mountain range. 

The smaller project area within the 

boundaries of the Upper Green River 

Watershed is approximately 110,397 

acres of National Forest System lands 

administered by the Pinedale Ranger 

District of the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest. The Upper Green River 

Watershed is comprised of the tributary 

creeks of the Green River and these 

include Moose Creek, Gypsum Creek, 

Roaring Fork, Boulder Creek and Wagon 

Creek. The subwatershed of two of these 

creeks, Moose Creek and Gypsum Creek 

and portion of the Green River 

watershed itself, are defined as the 

project area to be analyzed in this 

environmental impact statement. The 

legal description of the project area 

under consideration includes portions 

of T37N, R109W; T38N, R109/110W; 

T39N, R108/109/110W; T40N, R108/

109/110W. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The Moose-Gypsum EIS is being 

analyzed for the purpose of responding 

to the goals and objectives of the 

Bridger-Teton Forest Plan, in order to 

move the project area toward the 

Desired Future Conditions described in 

that plan. The 1999 Upper Green 

Landscape Assessment (LSA) analyzed 

integrated resource conditions in the 

project area. The LSA more specifically 

identified and described Desired Future 

Conditions for a variety of resources. In 

2004, the Gypsum Watershed Analysis 

was completed, further clarifying the 

Desired Future Conditions for some 

resources. The Purpose and Need for 

this project is to consider actions that 

attain, or take the initial steps toward 

attaining, these resources’ Desired 

Future Conditions. There are a number 

of com[ponents related to current 

resource conditions that are in need of 

improvement, and these include: 

• Reintroduction of fire into the area 

as a natural disturbance tool. Fire will 

be used to achieve a number of 

objectives ranging from habitat 

improvement, rangeland improvement, 

fuels reduction, and treatment of Aspen 

stands that are predominantly old age 

classes, are being encroached on by 

conifers, and are declining in growth 

and health. 

• Attention to the overall health of 

the watersheds of Moose and Gypsum 

Creeks through road surface 

improvement, culvert replacement and 

other watershed restoration activities. 

• Modification of the compositions of 

some of the vegetative species within 

the project area in order to move them 

toward historic vegetation 

compositions, which is the Desired 

Future Conditions for these vegetation 

species. A majority of the conifer stands 

in the project area are in older age 

classes that are declining in growth and 

health, accumulating heavy fuels loads 

and higher tree densities than are 

healthy for their site conditions. The 

Desired Future Condition would be to 

maintain a healthy variety: a percentage 

of stands in seedling/sapling stages, for 

example, with preservation of the forest 

structure in snags, down logs, tree 

clumps, lower tree densities and 

promotion of natural regeneration.

• Reduction of the risk of catastrophic 

wildfire by reduction of the hazardous 

fuels loads around private land through 

vegetation management. 

• Management of the timber resource 

for production of saw timber and other 

wood products from suitable 

timberlands available for timber harvest 

on an even-flow, long term, sustained 

yield basis, and in an economicallyefficient manner. 

• Provision of a diversity of 

opportunities for resource uses that 

contribute to the local and regional 

economies of northwestern Wyoming. 

• Improvement of recreation 

opportunities and the quality of 

recreational experiences through the 

development of a dispersed camping 

plan for the project area to protect 

sensitive areas such as streams and river 

banks, updating the 1996 Pinedale 

Ranger District’s Travel Management 

Plan in order to address Off-Highway 

Vehicle issues such as wilderness 

trespass, closure violations, and to 

ensure that choices for open and closed 

roads are appropriate. 

Proposed Action 

A Proposed Action is defined early in 

the project-level planning process. It 

serves as a starting point for the 

Interdisciplinary Team and gives the 

public and agencies information on 

which to focus comments. The Proposed 

action presented here will be updated 

using the comments received, 

preliminary analysis and additional 

field information obtained prior to the 

Draft EIS. The Proposed Action of this 

project is to complete a variety of 

projects within the area under analysis 

to meet Desired Future Conditions, 

goals and objectives identified for the 

various resources under consideration 

in this EIS. Vegetation treatments within 

the project are designed to move the 

vegetation to more historic species and 

age class compositions. These 

vegetation treatments will take place 

over an extended time period of up to 

ten years. 

Following are general descriptions of 

the type of projects being proposed and 

analyzed: 

1. Conifer Vegetation Treatments.

Conifer treatments are proposed to thin 

overstocked conifer forests while 

maintaining a forested appearance. The 

objective is to leave the healthiest trees 

of diverse species while reducing losses 

caused by insects and disease and 

salvaging wood products. These 

treatments will take place in older 

stands where tree growth is greatly 

reduced or where mortality of trees 

exceeds growth. The remaining trees 

will better utilize the nutritional 

resources available on their sites and 

continuously provide habitat for forestdependent species. Additional 

treatments will provide for regeneration 

of the declining Lodgepole pine, 

Whitebark pine and mixed conifer 

forests and enhanced age class diversity 

across the landscape. These treatments 

entail removing most merchantable trees 

through a commercial timber sale. 

Regeneration of healthy new stands will 

be ensured by planting with Lodgepole 

pine or Englemann spruce and/or 

providing for natural regeneration. 

Individual and groups of healthy seed 

trees and snags, and groups of healthy 

non-merchantable trees, will be left for 

seed, habitat, and diversity, where they 

are available. Age class diversity is 

important to reduce losses caused by 

insects and disease and will reflect 

historically occurring conditions. 

Treatments to be analyzed include: 

shelterwood harvest, overstory-removal 

harvest, clearcut harvest, groupselection harvest and salvage harvest. 

2. Aspen Treatments. A combination 

of mechanical treatments (which may 

include harvesting, pushing over, or 

other regeneration methods) and 

burning (broadcast and pile) of aspen 

and encroaching conifer to rejuvenate 

aspen stands. 

3. Sage and Grass Treatments.

Primarily burning with some use of 

sagebrush herbicides. The objectives are 

wildlife habitat improvement, rangeland 

improvement, sage encroached aspen, 

and reestablishment of diverse age 

structures. 

4. Fuels Reduction Treatments. A 

combination of mechanical treatments 

and burning (broadcast and pile) will be 

utilized to reduce fuel loadings around 

private lands. Down wood will be 

removed, understory ladder fuels will 

be pruned and a thinning from below of 

dense understory will open the 

61788 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Notices 

understory to reduce risk from crown 

fires. 

5. Watershed Improvements. Forest 

roads will be improved to minimize 

existing sedimentation into adjacent 

streams, improve drainage, and reduce 

continual maintenance needs. This will 

entail culvert replacement and 

maintenance as part of the harvest 

operations. Existing roads provide 

access to many of the treatment areas. 

Some additional skid roads may be 

needed to reach into the stands. After 

treatments are completed, these skid 

roads would be closed and obliterated 

and allowed to regenerate naturally, or 

seeded, depending upon the site. 

6. Travel Plan Update. The Pinedale 

Ranger District’s Travel Plan needs to be 

updated in some areas within the 

Gypsum Creek drainage and the Upper 

Green River drainage. Several problems 

exist including wilderness trespass, 

erosion problems that are adding 

sediment to streams and travel in areas 

that have been closed. These could lead 

to road closures of some routes, and 

maintenance and relocation of other 

routes that are causing problems. 

Several opportunities exist to provide 

additional travel routes open to OHVs. 

These include constructing short 

segments connecting two existing travel 

routes providing loop OHV trails, and 

provide addition OHV routes in certain 

other areas. 

7. Recreation Planning. A dispersed 

camping plan has been developed to 

establish new dispersed campsites 

while closing some dispersed sites that 

are in sensitive areas such as next to 

stream banks. Several problems exist 

along the Green River and Gypsum 

Creek, where dispersed camp sites are 

too close to the streams. This has caused 

trampling of the vegetation along the 

stream banks leading to increased 

erosion and sedimentation into the 

streams. The objective will be to provide 

dispersed camping opportunities while 

correcting erosion and sedimentation 

problems. Where opportunities allow, 

the dispersed campsites will be moved 

200 feet away from the streams. Where 

the use cannot be moved, those 

campsites will be closed and other 

campsites in adjacent areas will be 

opened to accommodate this use.

Possible Alternatives 

The Environmental Impact Statement 

will analyze at least three alternatives: 

The ‘‘No Action’’ alternative, which will 

detail the consequences of doing 

nothing in all the project categories 

included in the variety of projects of the 

Proposed Action; the effects of the 

‘‘Proposed Action’’ will be analyzed; 

and an ‘‘Alternative Action’’ may be 

formulated from acceptable portions of 

the Proposed Action. The scoping 

process and environmental analysis will 

evaluate the feasibility of alternatives to 

the proposed action. 

Responsible Official 

Craig Trulock, District Ranger, 

Pinedale Ranger District, P.O. Box 220, 

Pinedale, Wyoming 82941. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The decision, which will be based 

upon the analyses described above, will 

be whether or not the Proposed Project, 

or portions of the Proposed Project, will 

further the Pinedale District’s 

attainment of the Desired Future 

Conditions described in the BridgerTeton National Forest’s Land and 

Resource Management Plan. The 

decision will also identify needed 

mitigation measures during the analysis 

process, in addition to the any 

prescribed in the Land and Resource 

Management Plan. 

Scoping Process 

The Forest Service is seeking 

information, comments, and assistance 

from individuals, organizations and 

Federal, State, and local agencies that 

may be interested in or affected by the 

proposed action (36 CFR 219.6). 

Public comments will be used and 

disclosed in the environmental analysis 

documented in the Moose-Gypsum EIS. 

Public participation will be solicited by 

notifying in person, and/or by mail, 

known interested and affected parties. A 

legal notice and news releases will be 

used to give the public general notice. 

Open houses will be held from 4 p.m. 

to 7 p.m. on Wednesday, November 3, 

2004. Forest Service and Bionomics, 

Inc., (environmental consultants) will be 

available to explain the project, answer 

questions and record public input. 

A reasonable range of alternatives will 

be evaluated and reasons will be given 

for eliminating alternatives from 

detailed study. A ‘‘no-action 

alternative’’ is required by law, which 

means that the consequences of not 

doing the Proposed Action will be 

evaluated. Alternatives will be 

formulated in response to public issues, 

management concerns, existing 

condition reports and resource 

opportunities identified during the 

scoping process. 

Comments Requested 

This Notice of Intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the Moose-Gypsum 

Environmental Impact Statement.

Early Notice of Importance of Public 

Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review 

A draft environmental impact 

statement will be prepared for comment. 

The comment period on the draft 

environmental impact statement will be 

45 days from the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes the notice of availability in 

the Federal Register. 

The Forest Service believes, at this 

early stage, it is important to give 

reviewers notice of several court rulings 

related to public participation in the 

environmental review process. First, 

reviewers of draft environmental impact 

statements must structure their 

participation in the environmental 

review of the proposal so that it is 

meaningful and alerts an agency to the 

reviewer’s position and contentions. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. 

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, 

environmental objections that could be 

raised at the draft environmental impact 

statement stage but that are not raised 

until after completion of the final 

environmental impact statement may be 

waived or dismissed by the courts. City 

of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 

1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin 

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 

1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of 

these court rulings, it is very important 

that those interested in this proposed 

action participate by the close of the 30 

day comment period so that substantive 

comments and objections are made 

available to the Forest Service at a time 

when it can meaningfully consider them 

and respond to them in the final 

environmental impact statement. 

To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

concerns on the proposed action, 

comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement should be as specific 

as possible. It is also helpful if 

comments refer to specific pages or 

chapters of the draft statement. 

Comments may also address the 

adequacy of the draft environmental 

impact statement or the merits of the 

alternatives formulated and discussed in 

the statement. Reviewers may wish to 

refer to the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations for implementing 

the procedural provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act at 40 

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record on this proposal and will 

be available for public inspection.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Notices 61789

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

2.1.)

Dated: October 14, 2004. 

Craig Trulock, 

District Ranger, Pinedale Ranger District, 

Bridger-Teton National Forest.

[FR Doc. 04–23614 Filed 10–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Membership of the USCCR 

Performance Review Board

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights.

ACTION: Notice of membership of the 

USCCR Performance Review Board. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

appointment of the Performance Review 

Board (PRB) of the United States 

Commission on Civil Rights. Publication 

of PRB membership is required by 5 

U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). 

The PRB provides fair and impartial 

review of the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights’ Senior Executive Service 

performance appraisals and makes 

recommendations regarding 

performance ratings and performance 

awards to the Staff Director, U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights for the 

FY2003 rating year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Minor, Human Resources 

Assistant, U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, 624 9th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20425, (202) 376–8364. 

Members: Gloria Gutierrez, Deputy 

Administrator for Management, Food 

and Nutrition Service, USDA; Jill M. 

Crumpacker, Director, Policy & 

Performance Management, Chief, 

Human Capitol Officer, Federal Labor 

Relations Authority; Joseph Mancias, 

Senior Management Counsel, 

Department Homeland Security.

TinaLouise Martin, 

Director of Human Resources, U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights.

[FR Doc. 04–23573 Filed 10–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–427–098] 

Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From 

France: Revocation of Antidumping 

Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on anhydrous 

sodium metasilicate from France. 

SUMMARY: On September 1, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a second sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on anhydrous sodium metasilicate from 

France. See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 69 FR 53408 

(September 1, 2004). Because no 

domestic party responded to the sunset 

review notice of initiation by the 

applicable deadline, the Department is 

revoking the antidumping duty order on 

anhydrous sodium metasilicate from 

France.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21, 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: 

Scope 

Imports covered by this order covers 

anhydrous sodium metasilicate from 

France, a crystallized silicate which is 

alkaline and readily soluble in water. 

Applications include waste paper deinking, ore-flotation, bleach 

stabilization, clay processing, medium 

or heavy duty cleaning, and 

compounding into other detergent 

formulations. This merchandise is 

classified under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedules of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 2839.11.00 

and 2839.19.00. The HTSUS item 

numbers are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes. The written 

description remains dispositive. 

Background 

On January 7, 1981, the Department 

issued an antidumping duty order on 

anhydrous sodium metasilicate from 

France. See Anhydrous Sodium 

Metasilicate From France, Antidumping 

Duty Order, 46 FR 1667 (January 7, 

1981). On October 21, 1999, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.218(f)(4), the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

notice of continuation of the 

antidumping duty order following the 

first sunset review. See Continuation of 

Antidumping Duty Order: Anhydrous 

Sodium Metasilicate From France, 64 

FR 56737 (October 21, 1999). On 

September 1, 2004, the Department 

initiated a second sunset review of this 

order 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’’) 

Review, 69 FR 53408 (September 1, 

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 order. 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 September 21, 

2004, the Department notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

in writing that we intended to issue a 

final determination revoking this 

antidumping duty order. See 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B). 

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 

order. 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 order effective 

October 21, 2004, the fifth anniversary 

of the date of the determination to 

continue the order, 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 order entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, on or after 

October 21, 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 

order 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.