Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Notices 64903

Annex, Washington, DC 20250. 

Comments may also be sent by facsimile 

to (202) 205–0381. All submissions 

received must include the Agency name 

and docket number 04–038N. 

All comments submitted in response 

to this notice, as well as research and 

background information used by FSIS in 

developing this document, will be 

available for public inspection in the 

FSIS Docket Room at the address listed 

above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday. The comments 

also will be posted on the Agency’s Web 

site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/

regulations/2004_Notices_Index/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Tynan for technical information 

at (202) 690–6520 or e-mail 

robert.tynan@fsis.usda.gov and Sonya L. 

West for meeting information at (202) 

690–1079, fax (202) 690–6519, or e-mail 

sonya.west@fsis.usda.gov. Persons 

requiring a sign language interpreter or 

other special accommodations should 

notify Ms. West no later than November 

12, 2004, at the above numbers or by email.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 15, 2003, the Secretary of 

Agriculture renewed the charter for the 

NACMPI. The Committee provides 

advice and recommendations to the 

Secretary of Agriculture pertaining to 

the Federal and State meat and poultry 

inspection programs, pursuant to 

sections 7(c), 24, 205, 301(a)(3), 

301(a)(4), and 301(c) of the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 607(c), 624, 

645, 661(a)(3), 661(a)(4), and 661(c)) and 

sections 5(a)(3), 5(a)(4), 5(c), 8(b), and 

11(e) of the Poultry Products Inspection 

Act (21 U.S.C. 454(a)(3), 454(a)(4), 

454(c), 457(b), and 460(e)). 

The Administrator of FSIS is the 

chairperson of the Committee. 

Membership of the Committee is drawn 

from representatives of consumer 

groups, producers, processors and 

marketers from the meat and poultry 

industry, state government officials and 

academia. The current members of the 

NACMPI are: Ms. Deanna Baldwin, 

Maryland Department of Agriculture; 

Dr. Gladys Bayse, Spelman College; Dr. 

David Carpenter, Southern Illinois 

University; Dr. James Denton, 

University of Arkansas; Mr. Darin 

Detwiler, Lake Washington School 

District; Dr. Kevin Elfering, Minnesota 

Department of Agriculture; Ms. Sandra 

Eskin, American Association of Retired 

Persons; Mr. Michael Govro, Oregon 

Department of Agriculture; Dr. Joseph 

Harris, Southwest Meat Association; Dr. 

Jill Hollingsworth, Food Marketing 

Institute; Dr. Alice Johnson, National 

Turkey Federation; Mr. Michael 

Kowalcyk, Safe Tables Our Priority; Dr. 

Irene Leech, Virginia Citizens Consumer 

Council; Mr. Charles Link, Cargill Meat 

Solutions; Dr. Catherine Logue, North 

Dakota State University; and Mr. Mark 

Schad, Schad Meats. 

The Committee has three 

subcommittees to deliberate on specific 

issues and make recommendations to 

the Committee. 

All interested parties are welcome to 

attend the meetings and to submit 

written comments and suggestions 

concerning Committee issues. The 

comments and the official transcript of 

the meeting, when they become 

available, will be kept in the FSIS 

Docket Room at the address provided 

above. All comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered part of the public record and 

will be available for viewing in the FSIS 

Docket Room between 8:30 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. 

Members of the public will be 

required to register before entering the 

meeting. 

Additional Public Notification 

Public awareness of all segments of 

rulemaking and policy development is 

important. Consequently, in an effort to 

ensure that the public and in particular 

minorities, women, and persons with 

disabilities, are aware of this notice, 

FSIS will announce it on-line through 

the FSIS Web page located at http://

www.fsis.usda.gov.

FSIS also will make copies of this 

Federal Register publication available 

through the FSIS Constituent Update, 

which is used to provide information 

regarding FSIS policies, procedures, 

regulations, Federal Register notices, 

FSIS public meetings, recalls and other 

types of information that could affect or 

would be of interest to our constituents 

and stakeholders. The update is 

communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail 

subscription service consisting of 

industry, trade, farm and consumer 

interest groups, allied health 

professionals, scientific professionals, 

and other individuals who have 

requested to be included. The update 

also is available on the FSIS Web page. 

Through Listserv and the Web page, 

FSIS is able to provide information to a 

much broader, more diverse audience.

Done in Washington, DC on November 3, 

2004. 

Richard Van Blargan, 

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–24882 Filed 11–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–822] 

Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers 

from the People’s Republic of China; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by 

Shakeproof Assembly Components 

Division of Illinois Tool Works, Inc. 

(Shakeproof), a domestic interested 

party, the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

helical spring lock washers from the 

People’s Republic of China. The period 

of review (POR) is October 1, 2002, 

through September 30, 2003. We 

preliminarily find that the cash deposit 

rate for this review is de minimis. Upon 

completion of this review, the 

Department will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise that was 

exported by Hangzhou Spring Washer 

Co., Ltd. (also known as Zhejiang 

Wanxin Group, Ltd.) (collectively, 

Hangzhou), and entered during the POR. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marin Weaver, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–2336.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 19, 1993, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on certain helical spring lock washers 

(HSLWs) from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) (58 FR 53914), as amended 

on November 23, 1993 (58 FR 61859). 

On October 1, 2003, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of this 

order (68 FR 56618). On October 20, 

2003, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1), Shakeproof requested that 

the Department conduct an 

administrative review of Hangzhou, a 

producer/exporter of HSLWs from the 

PRC.

64904 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Notices 

The Department published a notice of 

initiation of this administrative review 

on November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66799). 

On June 25, 2004, the Department 

extended the due date for the 

preliminary results of this review to 

November 1, 2004. See Certain Helical 

Spring Lock Washers from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Extension 

of Time Limit of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Administrative Review, 69 

FR 35583 (June 25, 2004). Hangzhou 

submitted timely responses to all of the 

Department’s requests for information in 

this review.

Scope of the Order

The products covered by the order are 

HSLWs of carbon steel, of carbon alloy 

steel, or of stainless steel, heat–treated 

or non–heat-treated, plated or non–

plated, with ends that are off–line. 

HSLWs are designed to: (1) function as 

a spring to compensate for developed 

looseness between the component parts 

of a fastened assembly; (2) distribute the 

load over a larger area for screws or 

bolts; and (3) provide a hardened 

bearing surface. The scope does not 

include internal or external tooth 

washers, nor does it include spring lock 

washers made of other metals, such as 

copper.

HSLWs subject to the order are 

currently classifiable under subheading 

7318.21.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Separate Rates Determination

The Department has treated the PRC 

as a non–market-economy (NME) 

country in all past antidumping duty 

investigations and administrative 

reviews. See, e.g., Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 34130 

(June 18, 2004). A designation as an 

NME country remains in effect until it 

is revoked by the Department. See 

section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act).

It is the Department’s standard policy 

to assign all exporters of subject 

merchandise subject to review in a NME 

country a single rate unless an exporter 

can demonstrate an absence of 

government control, both in law and in 

fact, with respect to exports. To 

establish whether an exporter is 

sufficiently independent of government 

control to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the Department analyzes the exporter in 

light of the criteria established in the 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). 

Under this test, exporters in NME 

countries are entitled to separate, 

company–specific margins when they 

can demonstrate an absence of 

government control over exports, both 

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto). 

Evidence supporting, though not 

requiring, a finding of de jure absence 

of government control over export 

activities includes: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

the individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. De 

facto absence of government control 

over exports is based on four factors: (1) 

whether each exporter sets its own 

export prices independently of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) whether 

each exporter retains the proceeds from 

its sales and makes independent 

decisions regarding the disposition of 

profits or the financing of losses; (3) 

whether each exporter has the authority 

to negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) whether each 

exporter has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. (See Silicon Carbide, 59 

FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 56 FR at 

20589.)

In May 1999 Hangzhou was sold at 

auction to five individuals and became 

a limited liability company. Hangzhou 

has placed on the record documents to 

demonstrate the absence of de jure

control including its list of 

shareholders, business license, and the 

Company Law. Other than limiting 

Hangzhou to activities referenced in the 

business license, we found no restrictive 

stipulations associated with the license. 

In addition, in previous cases the 

Department has analyzed the Company 

Law and found that it establishes an 

absence of de jure control. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Partial–Extension Steel Drawer Slides 

with Rollers from the People’s Republic 

of China, 60 FR 54472, 54474 (October 

24, 1995). We have no information in 

this segment of the proceeding which 

would cause us to reconsider this 

determination. Therefore, based on the 

foregoing, we have preliminarily found 

an absence of de jure control for 

Hangzhou.

With regards to de facto control, 

Hangzhou reported the following: (1) it 

sets prices to the United States through 

negotiations with customers and these 

prices are not subject to review by any 

government organization; (2) it does not 

coordinate with other exporters or 

producers to set the price or determine 

to which market companies sell subject 

merchandise; (3) the Chamber of 

Commerce does not coordinate the 

export activities of Hangzhou; (4) 

Hangzhou’s general manager has the 

authority to contractually bind the 

company to sell subject merchandise; 

(5) the board of directors has appointed 

the general manager; (6) there is no 

restriction on its use of export revenues; 

(7) Hangzhou’s management decides 

how to dispose of the profits and 

Hangzhou has never had a loss. 

Additionally, Hangzhou’s questionnaire 

responses do not suggest that pricing is 

coordinated among exporters. 

Furthermore, our analysis of 

Hangzhou’s questionnaire responses 

reveals no other information indicating 

governmental control of export 

activities. Therefore, based on the 

information provided, we preliminarily 

determine that there is an absence of de 

facto government control over 

Hangzhou’s export functions.

In the instant administrative review, 

we find an absence of government 

control, both in law and in fact, with 

respect to Hangzhou’s export activities 

according to the criteria identified in 

Sparklers and an absence of government 

control with respect to the additional 

criteria identified in Silicon Carbide. 

Therefore, we have assigned Hangzhou 

a separate rate.

Export Price

Because Hangzhou sold the subject 

merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States prior to importation 

into the United States (or to unaffiliated 

resellers outside the United States with 

knowledge that the merchandise was 

destined for the United States) and use 

of a constructed–export-price 

methodology is not otherwise indicated, 

we have used export price in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act.

We calculated export price based on 

the FOB price to unaffiliated 

purchasers. From this price, we 

deducted amounts for foreign inland 

freight and brokerage and handling 

pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 

Act. We valued these deductions using 

surrogate values. We selected India as 

the primary surrogate country for the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Notices 64905

reasons explained in the ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ section of this notice.

Normal Value

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine normal 

value (NV) using a factors–ofproduction methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home–market 

prices, third–country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. Because information on the 

record does not permit the calculation 

of NV using home–market prices, third–

country prices, or constructed value and 

no party has argued otherwise, we 

calculated NV based on factors of 

production in accordance with sections 

773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.408(c).

Because we are using surrogate 

country factors–of-production prices to 

determine NV, section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act requires that the Department use 

values from a market–economy 

(surrogate) country that is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC and is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

We have determined that India, 

Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, 

Morocco, and Egypt are market–

economy countries at a comparable 

level of economic development to that 

of the PRC. (For a further discussion of 

our surrogate selection, see the July 15, 

2004, memorandum entitled Request for 

a List of Surrogate Countries which is 

available in the Department’s Central 

Records Unit, room B099, of the main 

Commerce building (CRU)). In addition, 

we have found that India is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise, 

i.e., fasteners. See Memorandum to File 

from Paul Stolz, dated November 1, 

2004, which is on file in the CRU. As 

in the investigation and the nine 

previous reviews of this order, we have 

chosen India as the primary surrogate 

country. Thus, we have used Indian 

prices to value the factors of production.

We selected, where possible, publicly 

available values from India which were 

average non–export values, 

representative of a range of prices 

within the POR or most 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive. 

Also, where we have relied upon import 

values, we have excluded imports from 

South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia. 

The Department has found that these 

countries maintain broadly available, 

non–industry-specific export subsidies 

and that the existence of these subsidies 

provides sufficient reason to believe or 

suspect that export prices from these 

countries are distorted. See Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields From 

the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

6482 (February 12, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. Our practice of 

excluding subsidized prices has been 

upheld in China National Machinery 

Import and Export Corporation v. 

United States and the Timken 

Company, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 

2003).

Steel Value

During the POR, Hangzhou imported 

a portion of its steel input (carbon steel 

wire rod (CSWR)) from market 

economies and paid for this input in a 

market–economy currency. In the 2001–

2002 administrative review, we 

disregarded certain steel import prices 

reported by Hangzhou because there 

was ‘‘reason to believe or suspect’’ the 

steel benefitted from subsidies and have 

continued to do so in this review. For 

further discussion of this issue, see

Memorandum to the File, Hang Zhou 

Spring Washer Plant, also known as 

Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd., 

Calculation Memorandum at 4 

(November 1, 2004). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1) we have used Hangzhou’s 

average purchase price for CSWR 

imported from a market–economy 

country during the POR to value CSWR 

in calculating Hangzhou’s normal value.

Material Inputs

We calculated a surrogate value for 

steel scrap using the value of imports of 

steel scrap into India based on 

information from the Monthly Statistics 

of the Foreign Trade of India - Imports 

(MSFTI). In computing this value, we 

have taken into account that we have 

made final affirmative countervailing 

duty determinations on steel products 

from numerous countries. Therefore, we 

have not included values for imports of 

steel scrap into India from Belgium, 

Canada, France, Germany, and the 

United Kingdom (as well as South 

Korea, Thailand and Indonesia).

The remaining inputs are addressed 

below:

• To value hydrochloric acid used in 

the production of HSLWs, we used 

per–kilogram import values 

obtained from Chemical Weekly. 

We adjusted this value to account 

for freight costs incurred between 

the supplier and Hangzhou.

• To value all other the chemicals 

used in the production of HSLWs, 

we used per–kilogram import 

values obtained from the MSFTI. 

We also adjusted these values to 

account for freight costs incurred 

between the supplier and 

Hangzhou.

• To value plating, we used a March 

14, 2003, price quote supplied by 

Shakeproof in the 2001–2002 

administrative review. We adjusted 

the value to reflect inflation using 

the wholesale price index (WPI) 

published by the International 

Monetary Fund (IMF).

• To value coal, we used a per–

kilogram value obtained from the 

MSFTI. We also made adjustments 

to account for freight costs incurred 

between the supplier and 

Hangzhou.

• To value electricity, we used the 

1999/2000 electricity price data 

from the 2001–2002 Annual Report 

on the Working of State Electricity 

Boards and Electricity Departments

published by the Planning 

Commission (Power and Energy 

Division) Government of India May, 

2002. We adjusted the value to 

reflect inflation using the electricity 

sector–specific inflation index 

published in the Reserve Bank of 

India (RBI) Bulletin.

• To value water, we used the Second 

Water Utilities Data Book for the 

Asian and Pacific Region published 

by the Asian Development Bank in 

1997. We adjusted the value to 

reflect inflation using the WPI 

published by the RBI.

• For labor, we used the regression–

based wage rate for the PRC in 

‘‘Expected Wages of Selected NME 

Countries,’’ located on the Internet 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/

index.html.

• For factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative 

expenses (SG&A), and profit values, 

we used information from the 

January 1997 RBI Bulletin report 

entitled ‘‘Combined Income, Value 

of Production, Expenditure and 

Appropriation Accounts, Industry 

Group–Wise, 1990 - 91 to 1992 - 93 

(contd.).’’ From this information, 

we were able to determine factory 

overhead as a percentage of the total 

raw materials, labor and energy 

(ML&E) costs, SG&A as a percentage 

of ML&E plus overhead (i.e., cost of 

manufacture), and the profit rate as 

a percentage of the cost of 

manufacture plus SG&A.

• For packing materials, we used the 

per–kilogram values obtained from 

the MSFTI. Where necessary, we 

adjusted these values to reflect 

inflation using the WPI published 

by the RBI. We also made 

adjustments to account for freight 

64906 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Notices 

costs incurred between the PRC 

supplier and Hangzhou.

• To value foreign brokerage and 

handling, we used information 

reported in the Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 

Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from India, 67 FR 

50406 (October 3, 2001). We 

adjusted this value to reflect 

inflation using the WPI published 

by the RBI.

• To value truck freight, we used the 

freight rates published in the Great 

Indian Bazaar at http://

www.infobanc.com/logtruck.htm. 

We obtained distances between 

cities from the following website: 

http://www.mapsofindia.com. We 

deflated this value using the WPI 

published by the RBI.

For a complete description of the 

factor values we used, see

‘‘Memorandum to File: Factor Values 

Used for the Preliminary Results of the 

2002–2003 Administrative Review,’’

dated November 1, 2004 (Factors 

Memorandum), a public version of 

which is available in the Public File of 

the CRU.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that the 

following dumping margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Time Period Margin (percent) 

Hang Zhou Spring Washer Co. Ltd./Zhejiang Wanxin Group, Ltd. .................... 10/1/02–9/30/03 0.00

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding within five days of the 

publication date of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are 

invited to comment on the preliminary 

results. Interested parties may submit 

case briefs within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, may be filed no later than 37 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. Parties who submit arguments 

are requested to submit with each 

argument a statement of the issue, a 

brief summary of the argument, and a 

table of authorities.

Further, we would appreciate it if 

parties submitting written comments 

would provide an additional copy of the 

public version of any such comments on 

a diskette. Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will 

be held 44 days after the publication of 

this notice or the first workday 

thereafter. The Department will publish 

a notice of the final results of this 

administrative review, which will 

include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any written comments 

or hearing, within 120 days from 

publication of this notice.

Assessment

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department calculated an assessment 

rate for each importer of subject 

merchandise. Upon completion of this 

review, the Department will instruct 

CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise. We have calculated each 

importer’s duty–assessment rate based 

on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total quantity of 

sales examined. Where the assessment 

rate is above de minimis, the importer–

specific rate will be assessed uniformly 

on all entries made during the POR.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit rates will 

be effective upon publication of the 

final results for all shipments of HSLWs 

from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date, as provided 

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

Hangzhou, which has a separate rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the 

company–specific rate established in 

the final results of review; (2) for all 

other PRC exporters, the cash deposit 

rate will be the PRC rate, 128.63 

percent, which is the ‘‘All Other PRC 

Manufacturers, Producers and 

Exporters’’ rate from the Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock 

Washers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 58 FR 48833 (September 20, 

1993); and (3) for non–PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC supplier of that 

exporter. These deposit rates, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

publication of the final results of the 

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties.

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: November 1, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–24952 Filed 11–8–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

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. 85–10A018. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce has issued an amended 

Export Trade Certificate of Review to 

the U.S. Shippers Association (‘‘USSA’’) 

on October 27, 2004. The original 

Export Trade Certificate of Review No. 

85–00018 was issued to USSA on June 

3, 1986, and announced in the Federal 

Register on June 9, 1986, (51 FR 20873). 

The previous amendment (No. 85–

9A018) was issued to USSA on July 2, 

2001, and announced in the Federal 

Register July 9, 2001, (66 FR 35773).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export 

Trading Company Affairs, International 

Trade Administration, by telephone at 

(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 (2004). 

Export Trading Company Affairs is 

issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 

325.6(b), which requires the 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