62868 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 

1The petitioner in this investigation is the United 

States PET Resin Producers Coalition, an ad hoc

coalition of the four largest U.S. PET resin 

producers that includes: DAK Americas, LLC; Nan 

Ya Plastics Corporation America; Voridian; and 

Wellman, Inc.

2Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning the company corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 

which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 

Section B requests a complete listing of all home 

market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, 

of sales in the most appropriate third-country 

market (this section is not applicable to respondents 

in non-market economy cases). Section C requests 

a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests 

information on the cost of production of the foreign 

like product and the constructed value of the 

merchandise under investigation. Section E 

requests information on further manufacturing.

3See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Re: 

Investigation of Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin 

from Taiwan: Petitioner’s Allegation of Sales Below 

the Cost of Production for Far Eastern Textile, dated 

August 27, 2004.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A–583–840)

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) 

Resin from Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of negative preliminary 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value and extension of final 

determination.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 28, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel O’Brien or Ashleigh Batton at 

(202) 482–1376 or (202) 482–6309, 

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, 

Office 1, Import Administration, Room 

1870, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that 

imports of PET Resin from Taiwan are 

not being sold, or are not likely to be 

sold, in the United States at less than 

fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 

733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the Suspension of Liquidation section of 

this notice.

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. Since we are postponing 

the final determination, we will make 

our final determination not later than 

135 days after the date of publication of 

this preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register.

Petitioner

The petitioner in this investigation is 

the United States PET Resin Producers 

Coalition (the petitioner).1

Case History

This investigation was initiated on 

April 13, 2004. See Notice of Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty Investigation: 

Bottle–Grade Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand, 69 FR 

at 21082 (April 20, 2004) (Initiation 

Notice). Since the initiation of the 

investigation, the following events have 

occurred.

The Department of Commerce (the 

Department) set aside a period for all 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. See 

Initiation Notice, 69 FR at 21083. No 

responses were received.

On May 10, 2004, the Department 

issued a letter providing interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

the Department’s proposed model match 

characteristics and its hierarchy of 

characteristics. Between May 17, 2004, 

and June 3, 2004, the Department 

received comments and/or rebuttal 

comments on model matching from the 

petitioner, Far Eastern Textiles, Reliance 

Industries Ltd., South Asian Petrochem 

Ltd. and P.T. Indorama Synthetics. The 

Department took these comments into 

consideration in developing the model 

matching characteristics and hierarchy 

for all of the PET Resin antidumping 

investigations.

On May 19, 2004, the United States 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of the 

products subject to this investigation are 

materially injuring an industry in the 

United States producing the domestic 

like product. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand, 69 FR 

at 28948 (May 19, 2004) (ITC 

Preliminary Determination).

On June 9, 2004, the Department 

issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Far Eastern Textile Ltd. 

(Far Eastern), specifying that the 

responses to Section A and Sections B–

C would be due on June 30, 2004, and 

July 16, 2004, respectively.2 We 

received responses to Sections A–C of 

the antidumping questionnaire and 

issued supplemental questionnaires 

where appropriate. On August 3, 2004, 

we received an allegation of sales below 

cost from the petitioner. On September 

1, 2004, pursuant to section 732(e) of 

the Act, the Department initiated a cost 

investigation for Far Eastern’s 

Taiwanese sales of PET Resin.3 Far 

Eastern submitted its response to 

Section D on September 24, 2004.

On June 30, 2004, the petitioner 

requested that the Department postpone 

the preliminary determination in this 

investigation. Because there were no 

compelling reasons to deny the request, 

we postponed the preliminary 

determination to October 20, 2004, 

under section 733(c)(1) of the Act. See 

Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 

Antidumping Duty Determinations: 

Bottle–Grade Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand, 69 FR 

48842, (August 11, 2004).

Postponement of Final Determination

Section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Act 

provides that a final determination may 

be postponed until not later than 135 

days after the date of the publication of 

the preliminary determination if, in the 

event of a negative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by the petitioner. 

On October 6, 2004, we received a 

request to postpone the final 

determination from the petitioner, the 

United States PET Resin Producers 

Coalition. Since this preliminary 

determination is negative, and there is 

no compelling reason to deny the 

petitioner’s request, we have extended 

the deadline for issuance of the final 

determination until the 135th day after 

the date of publication of this 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register.

Selection of Respondents

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter and producer of the subject 

merchandise. Where it is not practicable 

to examine all known producers/

exporters of subject merchandise, 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the 

Department to investigate either: 1) a 

sample of exporters, producers, or types 

of products that is statistically valid, 

based on the information available at 

the time of selection; or 2) exporters and 

producers accounting for the largest 

volume of the subject merchandise that 

can reasonably be examined. In the 

petition, the petitioner identified three 

potential producers and exporters of 

PET Resin in Taiwan: Shinkong 

Synthetic Fibers Corporation, Far 

Eastern, and Hualon Corporation.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 62869

4See Memorandum from Constance Handley, 

Program Manager, to Susan Kuhbach, Director of 

Office 1, RE: Selection of Respondents, dated May 

12, 2004.

5See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 

3, 2000) and accompanying Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 11; Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar From 

Japan, 65 FR 13717 (March 14, 2000) and 

accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 

1.

Based on statistics obtained from U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 

the Department selected Far Eastern as 

the mandatory respondent.4 On June 9, 

2004, the Department issued an 

antidumping questionnaire to Far 

Eastern.

Period of Investigation

The Period of Investigation (POI) is 

January 1, 2003, through December 31, 

2003. This period corresponds to the 

four most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of filing of the petition in 

March 2004.

Scope of Investigation

For the purpose of this investigation, 

the product covered by this scope is 

bottle–grade PET resin, defined as 

having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 

0.68 deciliters per gram but not more 

than 0.86 deciliters per gram. The scope 

includes bottle–grade PET resin that 

contains various additives introduced in 

the manufacturing process.

The scope does not include post–

consumer recycle (PCR) or post–

industrial recycle (PIR) PET resin; 

however, included in the scope is any 

bottle–grade PET resin blend of virgin 

PET bottle–grade resin and recycled 

PET (RPET). Waste and scrap PET is 

outside the scope of the investigation. 

Fiber–grade PET resin, which has an 

intrinsic viscosity of less than 0.68 

deciliters per gram is also outside the 

scope of the investigation.

The bottle–grade PET resin products 

subject to this investigation are 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) at subheadings 3907.60.0100 

and 3907.60.0050. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under investigation is dispositive.

Scope Comments

In accordance with the preamble to 

our regulations (see Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997)), we set aside a period of time for 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage and encouraged all parties to 

submit comments within 20 calendar 

days of publication of the Initiation 

Notice. We did not receive any scope 

comments from interested parties 

within the comment period.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, all products produced by the 

respondents covered by the description 

in the Scope of Investigation section, 

above, and sold in Taiwan during the 

POI, are considered to be foreign like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. We have relied on four 

criteria to match U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise to comparison–market 

sales of the foreign like product: 1) 

Intrinsic Viscosity; 2) Blend; 3) 

Copolymer/Homopolymer; and 4) 

Additives. Where there were no sales of 

identical merchandise in the home 

market to compare to U.S. sales, we 

compared U.S. sales to the next most 

similar foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade.

Date of Sale

In its questionnaire responses, Far 

Eastern reported home market sales 

using shipping date as the date of sale 

because the ship date precedes the 

invoice date; invoices are issued in the 

home market after the product has 

shipped. Based on the description of the 

sales process provided by Far Eastern, 

and in keeping with Department 

practice, we used the date of shipment 

as the date of sale for all home market 

sales. 5 For U. S. sales, Far Eastern 

reported the customs clearance date as 

date of sale. The customs clearance date 

precedes the invoice date by 2 to 4 days; 

again, the product is invoiced once it 

has left the factory. For sales where the 

ship date occurred before the customs 

clearance date, we used the shipping 

date as the date of sale.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of PET 

resin were made in the United States at 

LTFV, we compared the export price 

(EP) to the normal value (NV), as 

described in the Export Price and 

Normal Value sections of this notice. In 

accordance with section 

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

calculated weighted–average EPs. We 

compared these to weighted–average 

home market prices in Taiwan.

Export Price

For the price to the United States, we 

used EP, as defined in section 772(a) of 

the Act. Section 772(a) of the Act 

defines EP as the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold before 

the date of importation by the producer 

or exporter outside of the United States 

to an unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States or to an unaffiliated 

purchaser for exportation to the United 

States, as adjusted under subsection 

772(c) of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2) 

of the Act, for EP sales, we made 

deductions from the starting price for 

movement expenses, discounts, billing 

adjustments, export taxes, duties, and 

rebates, where appropriate.

We deducted inland freight from the 

plant/warehouse to port of exit, 

brokerage and handling, harbor 

construction fee in the country of 

manufacture, trade promotion fee in the 

country of manufacture, international 

freight, marine insurance, brokerage and 

handling incurred in the United States, 

U.S. inland freight from port to 

warehouse, U.S. warehousing expense, 

and U.S. customs duty.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department to calculate NV based on 

the price at which the foreign like 

product is sold in the home market, 

provided that the merchandise is sold in 

sufficient quantities (or value, if 

quantity is inappropriate), and that 

there is no particular market situation 

that prevents a proper comparison with 

the EP or CEP. Under the statute, the 

Department will normally consider 

quantity (or value) insufficient if it is 

less than five percent of the aggregate 

quantity (or value) of sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. We 

found that Far Eastern had a viable 

home market for PET resin. As such, Far 

Eastern submitted home market sales 

data for the calculation of NV.

In deriving NV, we made adjustments 

as detailed in the following Calculation 

of Normal Value Based on Home Market 

Prices section.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

Based on allegations contained in the 

petition, and in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that PET resin sales were made in 

Taiwan at prices below the cost of 

production (COP). See Memorandum to 

Susan Kuhbach from Ashleigh Batton 

and Daniel O’Brien re. Petitioner’s 

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for Far Eastern Textile, 

dated August 27, 2004. As a result, the 

Department is conducting an 

62870 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 

6The marketing process in the United States and 

home market begins with the producer and extends 

to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain 

of distribution between the two may have many or 

few links, and the respondent’s sales occur 

somewhere along this chain. In performing this 

evaluation, we considered the respondent’s 

narrative response to properly determine where in 

the chain of distribution the sale occurs.

7Selling functions associated with a particular 

chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) 

of trade in a particular market. For purposes of this 

preliminary determination, we have organized the 

common selling functions into four major 

categories: sales process and marketing support, 

freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, 

and quality assurance/warranty services.

8Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), 

we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the 

sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A 

and profit for CV, where possible.

investigation to determine whether Far 

Eastern made home market sales at 

prices below their respective COPs 

during the POI within the meaning of 

section 773(b) of the Act. We conducted 

the COP analysis described below.

1. Calculation of Cost of Production

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated a weighted–

average COP based on the sum of the 

cost of materials and fabrication for the 

foreign like product, plus amounts for 

the home market G&A expenses, 

including interest expenses and packing 

expenses. We relied on the COP data 

submitted by Far Eastern in its cost 

questionnaire responses except for the 

following adjustments:

a. We adjusted the reported cost of 

manufacture (COM) to reflect the 

highest of transfer price, market price 

and affiliated suppliers’ COP for the 

inputs purchased from affiliated 

suppliers;

b. We based Far Eastern’s G&A expense 

ratio on Far Eastern’s company–wide 

data rather than its divisional data as 

submitted.

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

We compared the weighted–average 

COP for Far Eastern to its home–market 

sales prices of the foreign like product, 

as required under section 773(b) of the 

Act, to determine whether these sales 

had been made at prices below the COP 

within an extended period of time (i.e., 

a period of one year) in substantial 

quantities and whether such prices were 

sufficient to permit the recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a model–specific basis, we 

compared the revised COP to the home 

market prices, less any applicable 

movement charges, discounts, rebates, 

and direct and indirect selling expenses.

3. Results of the COP Test

Where 20 percent or more of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the POI were at prices less than 

the COP, we determined such sales to 

have been made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities’’ within an extended period 

of time in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, 

because we compared prices to POI 

average costs, pursuant to section 

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we also 

determined that such sales were not 

made at prices that would permit 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. We found that Far 

Eastern made sales below cost and we 

disregarded such sales where 

appropriate.

C. Level of Trade

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as 

the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs 

if they are made at different marketing 

stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 

selling activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. Id.; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 

1997). In order to determine whether the 

comparison sales were at different 

stages in the marketing process than the 

U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution 

system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain 

of distribution’’),6 including selling 

functions,7 class of customer (‘‘customer 

category’’), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying levels of trade for 

EP and comparison market sales (i.e., 

NV based on either home market or 

third country prices8) we consider the 

starting prices before any adjustments.

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign 

like product in the comparison market 

at the same LOT as the EP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP 

sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, we make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

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

We obtained information from Far 

Eastern regarding the marketing stages 

involved in making the reported home 

market and U.S. sales, including a 

description of the selling activities 

performed by Far Eastern for each 

channel of distribution. Our LOT 

findings are summarized below.

Far Eastern reported that it sells to 

end users and traders in the home 

market, and to U.S. end users and 

wholesalers. Far Eastern reported a 

single LOT in the home market and has 

not requested an LOT adjustment. We 

examined the information reported by 

Far Eastern and found that home market 

sales to both customer categories were 

identical with respect to sales process, 

freight services, warehouse/inventory 

maintenance, advertising activities, 

technical service, and warranty service. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily find that 

Far Eastern had only one LOT for its 

home market sales.

Far Eastern made only EP sales to the 

United States during the POI. The EP 

sales were all made through the same 

channel of distribution (i.e., sales from 

the manufacturer directly to the 

customer). The EP selling activities 

differ slightly from the home market 

selling activities. In determining 

whether separate LOTs exist between 

U.S. EP sales and home–market sales, 

we examined the selling functions in 

the distribution chains and customer 

categories reported in both markets. Far 

Eastern’s sales to end–users and traders 

in the homemarket and in the U.S. 

market do not involve significantly 

different selling functions. Therefore, 

we find that the U.S. LOT is similar to 

the home market LOT and an LOT 

adjustment is not necessary. See section 

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

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Home Market Prices

We determined NV for Far Eastern as 

follows. We made adjustments for any 

differences in packing and deducted 

home market movement expenses, 

rebates, and discounts pursuant to 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) 

of the Act. In addition, where applicable 

in comparison to EP transactions, we 

made adjustments for differences in 

circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We 

made COS adjustments for Far Eastern’s 

EP transactions by deducting direct 

selling expenses incurred for home 

market sales (e.g., credit expense and 

warranty expenses) and adding U.S. 

direct selling expenses (e.g., credit 

expenses, and bank charges).

Currency Conversions

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A of the Act based on exchange rates 

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sale, 

as obtained from the Federal Reserve 

Bank (the Department’s preferred source 

for exchange rates).

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Notices 62871

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of 

the Act, we intend to verify all 

information relied upon in making our 

final determination for Far Eastern.

The weighted–average dumping 

margins are provided below:

Producer/Exporter 

Weighted–

Average Margin (Percentage) 

Far Eastern ............................. 0.09

All Others ................................ 0.09

Suspension of Liquidation

Pursuant to Section 733(b)(3) of the 

Act, because the estimated weighted–

average dumping margin for the 

examined company is de minimis, we 

are not directing CBP to suspend 

liquidation of entries of PET resin from 

Taiwan.

Disclosure

The Department will disclose its 

calculations in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b).

International Trade Commission 

Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of the 

Department’s preliminary negative 

determination. If the final determination 

in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine before the later of 120 

days after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after the final 

determination whether imports of PET 

resin from Taiwan is materially injuring, 

or threatens material injury to, the U.S. 

industry.

Public Comment

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs on the later of 50 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice or one week after the issuance of 

the verification reports. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the 

content of which is limited to the issues 

raised in the case briefs, must be filed 

within five days after the deadline for 

the submission of case briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). A list of authorities 

used, a table of contents, and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. Executive summaries 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. Further, we request 

that parties submitting briefs and 

rebuttal briefs provide the Department 

with a copy of the public version of 

such briefs on diskette.

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. If a 

request for a hearing is made, we will 

tentatively hold the hearing two days 

after the deadline for submission of 

rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at 

a time and in a room to be determined. 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

48 hours before the scheduled date.

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 

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. 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, oral presentations will be 

limited to issues raised in the briefs. See

19 CFR 351.310(c). The Department will 

make its final determination no later 

than 135 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary 

determination.

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

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

Dated: October 20, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–24095 Filed 10–27–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–423–809]

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

Belgium; Extension of Time Limit for 

the Final Results of Sunset Review of 

Countervailing Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for the Final Results of Sunset 

Review of Countervailing Duty Order: 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

Belgium.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is extending the 

time limit for its final results in the 

sunset review of the countervailing duty 

order on stainless steel plate in coils 

(‘‘SSPC’’) Belgium. The Department 

intends to issue the final results of this 

sunset review on or about October 28, 

2004.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 28, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hilary Sadler, Esq., Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4340.

Extension of Final Results of Reviews:

In accordance with section 

751(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department 

may extend the time for making a 

determination in a sunset review if the 

review is ‘‘extraordinarily complicated.’’

The Department may treat sunset 

reviews as extraordinarily complicated 

if the issues are complex, in accordance 

with section 751(c)(5)(C)(ii) of the Act. 

As discussed below, the Department has 

determined that this review is 

extraordinarily complicated and is 

therefore extending the deadline for 

issuing the final results.

On April 1, 2004, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the 

countervailing duty order on SSPC from 

Belgium. See Initiation of Five–Year 

(Sunset) Reviews, 69 FR 17129 (April 1, 

2004). The Department, in this 

proceeding, determined that it would 

conduct an expedited sunset review of 

this order based on inadequate 

responses to the notice of initiation from 

respondent interested parties. The 

Department’s final results of this review 

were originally scheduled for July 30, 

2004 and were extended on July 29, 

2004 and on September 20, 2004. The 

Department, however, needs additional 

time to consider complex issues related 

to the appropriate countervailing duty 

rate likely to prevail if the order is 

revoked. Specifically, the Department is 

considering issues surrounding the 

allocation periods of certain programs. 

Thus, because of the complex issues in 

this proceeding , the Department will 

extend the deadline for issuance of the 

final results. The Department intents to 

issue the final results on or about 

October 28, 2004, in accordance with 

sections 751(c)(5)(B) and 751(c)(5)(C)(ii) 

of the Act.

Dated: October 15, 2004.

Jeffrey A. May,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. E4–2898 Filed 10–27–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S