5502 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

1Consistent with the Department’s practice, for 

the purposes of these preliminary results, we have 

analyzed data for the period January 1, 2001 

through December 31, 2001 to determine the 

subsidy rate for exports of subject merchandise 

made during the period in 2001 when liquidation 

of entries was suspended. In addition, we have 

analyzed data for the period January 1, 2002 

through December 31, 2002 to determine the 

subsidy rate for exports during that period. Further, 

we are using the 2002 subsidy rate to establish the 

cash deposit rate for entry of subject merchandise 

subsequent to the issuance of the final results of 

this administrative review.

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of these 

reviews. In addition, for the periods 

May 14, 2001, through September 11, 

2001, and February 13, 2002, through 

December 31, 2002, the assessment rates 

applicable to all non-reviewed 

companies covered by this order are the 

cash deposit rates in effect at the time 

of entry. 

Because the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (URAA) replaced the 

general rule in favor of a country-wide 

rate with a general rule in favor of 

individual rates for investigated and 

reviewed companies, the procedures for 

establishing countervailing duty rates, 

including those for non-reviewed 

companies, are now essentially the same 

as those in antidumping cases, except as 

provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of 

the Act. The requested review will 

normally cover only those companies 

specifically named. See 19 CFR 

351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(c), for all companies for which 

a review was not requested, duties must 

be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and 

cash deposits must continue to be 

collected, at the rate previously ordered. 

As such, the countervailing duty cash 

deposit rate applicable to a company 

can no longer change, except pursuant 

to a request for a review of that 

company. See Federal-Mogul 

Corporation and The Torrington 

Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 

782 (CIT 1993), and Floral Trade 

Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 

766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 

353.22(e), the old antidumping 

regulation on automatic assessment, 

which is identical to the current 

regulation, 19 CFR 351.212(c)(ii)(2)). 

Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all 

companies except those covered by 

these reviews will be unchanged by the 

results of these reviews.

We will instruct the CBP to continue 

to collect cash deposits for nonreviewed companies at the most recent 

company-specific or country-wide rate 

applicable to the company. Accordingly, 

the cash deposit rates that will be 

applied to non-reviewed companies 

covered by this order will be the rate for 

that company established in the most 

recently completed administrative 

proceeding. See Notice of Amended 

Final Determinations and Notice of 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Low 

Enriched Uranium from Germany, the 

Netherlands and the United Kingdom, 

67 FR 6688 (February 13, 2002). These 

cash deposit rates shall apply to all nonreviewed companies until a review of a 

company assigned these rates is 

requested. 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the 

Department will disclose to parties to 

the proceeding any calculations 

performed in connection with these 

preliminary results within five days 

after the date of the public 

announcement of this notice. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties 

may submit written comments in 

response to these preliminary results. 

Unless otherwise indicated by the 

Department, case briefs must be 

submitted within 30 days after the 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to 

arguments raised in case briefs, must be 

submitted no later than five days after 

the time limit for filing case briefs, 

unless otherwise specified by the 

Department. 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. Parties 

submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs 

are requested to provide the Department 

copies of the public version on disk. 

Case and rebuttal briefs must be served 

on interested parties in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date 

of publication of this notice, interested 

parties may request a public hearing on 

arguments to be raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary 

specifies otherwise, the hearing, if 

requested, will be held two days after 

the date for submission of rebuttal 

briefs. 

Representatives of parties to the 

proceeding may request disclosure of 

proprietary information under 

administrative protective order no later 

than 10 days after the representative’s 

client or employer becomes a party to 

the proceeding, but in no event later 

than the date the case briefs, under 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The 

Department will publish the final 

results of these administrative reviews, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief 

or at a hearing. 

These administrative reviews are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act.

Dated: January 29, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2522 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-427–819]

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review: Low 

Enriched Uranium from France

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on low 

enriched uranium from France for the 

period May 14, 2001 through December 

31, 20021. For information on the net 

subsidy for the reviewed company, 

please see the ‘‘Preliminary Results of 

Review’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

(See the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section of 

this notice).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carrie Farley at (202) 482–0395 or 

Tipten Troidl at (202) 482–1767, Office 

of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 13, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

countervailing duty order on low 

enriched uranium from France. See 

Amended Final Determination and 

Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: 

Low Enriched Uranium from France, 67 

FR 6689 (February 13, 2002). On 

February 3, 2003, the Department 

published an opportunity to request an 

administrative review of this 

countervailing duty order. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5503

2USEC Inc., its wholly owned subsidiary, United 

States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) and the 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy 

Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, and 

Local 5-550 and Local 5-689 (the petitioners)

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request an 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 5272 

(February 3, 2003). We received a timely 

request for review of Eurodif S.A. 

(Eurodif), by both respondents and 

petitioners.2 On March 25, 2003, the 

Department published the initiation of 

the administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on low 

enriched uranium from France, covering 

the period of review (POR) May 14, 

2001 through December 31, 2002. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Revocation in Part, 68 FR 

14394 (March 25, 2003).

On May 2, 2003, the Department 

issued a questionnaire to the 

Government of France (GOF) and 

Eurodif. On June 19, 2003, the 

Department received questionnaire 

responses from the GOF, and Eurodif. 

On October 23, 2003, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

extension of the deadline for the 

preliminary results. See Low Enriched 

Uranium from France, Germany, the 

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: 

Extension of Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 68 FR 60643 (October 23, 

2003). On October 14, 2003 and 

November 3, 2003, we issued 

supplemental questionnaires to 

respondents. On October 31, 2003 and 

November 7, 2003, we received 

supplemental responses from 

respondents. From November 11 

through November 14, 2003, we 

conducted verification of the responses 

of Eurodif and the GOF.

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), this review covers only 

those producers or exporters for which 

a review was specifically requested. The 

company subject to this review is 

Eurodif. This review covers 2 programs.

Scope of Order

For purposes of this order, the 

product covered is all low enriched 

uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched 

uranium hexafluoride (UF6) with a U235

product assay of less than 20 percent 

that has not been converted into another 

chemical form, such as UO2, or 

fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, 

regardless of the means by which the 

LEU is produced (including LEU 

produced through the down-blending of 

highly enriched uranium).

Certain merchandise is outside the 

scope of this order. Specifically, this 

order does not cover enriched uranium 

hexafluoride with a U235 assay of 20 

percent or greater, also known as highly 

enriched uranium. In addition, 

fabricated LEU is not covered by the 

scope of this order. For purposes of this 

order, fabricated uranium is defined as 

enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), 

whether or not contained in nuclear fuel 

rods or assemblies. Natural uranium 

concentrates (U3O8) with a U235

concentration of no greater than 0.711 

percent and natural uranium 

concentrates converted into uranium 

hexafluoride with a U235 concentration 

of no greater than 0.711 percent are not 

covered by the scope of this order.

Also excluded from this order is LEU 

owned by a foreign utility end-user and 

imported into the United States by or for 

such end-user solely for purposes of 

conversion by a U.S. fabricator into 

uranium dioxide (UO2) and/or 

fabrication into fuel assemblies so long 

as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel 

assemblies deemed to incorporate such 

imported LEU (i) remain in the 

possession and control of the U.S. 

fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their 

designed transporter(s) while in U.S. 

customs territory, and (ii) are reexported within eighteen (18) months of 

entry of the LEU for consumption by the 

end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the 

United States. Such entries must be 

accompanied by the certifications of the 

importer and end user.

The merchandise subject to this order 

is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject 

merchandise may also enter under 

2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 

2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

is dispositive.

Period of Review

The POR for which we are measuring 

subsidies is May 14, 2001, through 

December 31, 2002.

Company History

Eurodif was formed in 1973 by French 

and foreign government agencies to 

provide a secure source of LEU, in order 

to facilitate the development of nuclear 

energy programs in participating 

countries. During the POR, Eurodif was 

44.65 percent-owned by COGEMA, 

which itself is principally owned by a 

subsidiary of the Commissariat 

d’Energie Atomique (CEA), an agency of 

the GOF. Further, Eurodif was 25 

percent-owned by SOFIDIF, a French 

company 60 percent-owned by 

COGEMA, thereby effectively placing 

COGEMA’s ownership of Eurodif during 

the POR at approximately 60 percent. 

The remaining major shareholders of 

Eurodif during the POR were ENUSA, 

an entity of the Spanish government, 

SYNATOM, an entity of the Belgian 

government, and ENEA, an entity of the 

Italian government.

Programs Preliminarily Determined To 

Confer Subsidies

1. Purchase at Prices that Constitute 

‘‘More Than Adequate Remuneration’’

Eurodif provides low enriched 

uranium to EdF. EdF is a wholly-owned 

French government agency that 

supplies, imports and exports 

electricity. EdF is regulated by the Gas, 

Electricity and Coal Department of the 

Ministry of Industry (DIGEC) and the 

Budget and Treasury Departments of the 

Ministry of France. EdF is the major 

supplier of electricity in France and 

EdF’s nuclear facilities account for 

approximately 85 percent of the power 

supplied by EdF in 2002. To date, EdF 

has entered into three long-term 

contracts with Eurodif to secure LEU. 

The first contract was negotiated in 

1975; Eurodif began enrichment at its 

Georges-Besse gaseous diffusion facility 

in 1979.

In the Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: Low 

Enriched Uranium from France, 66 FR 

65901 (December 21, 2001) (1999 LEU) 

we found this program to be 

countervailable. The facts on which this 

determination was made have not 

changed. EdF is still owned by the GOF, 

and because EdF is purchasing a good 

from Eurodif a financial contribution is 

being provided under section 

771(5)(D)(iv) of the Act. In addition, 

because this program is available only to 

Eurodif, we continue to find that this 

program is specific under section 

771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.

Next, we must determine whether a 

benefit is provided to Eurodif under this 

program. Under section 771(5)(E)(iv) of 

the Act, a countervailable benefit may 

be provided by a government’s purchase 

of a good for ‘‘more than adequate 

remuneration.’’ Under section 

771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act, the adequacy of 

remuneration will be determined in 

relation to the prevailing market 

conditions for the goods being 

purchased in the country which is 

subject to investigation. Therefore, in 

order to determine whether the prices 

paid by EdF constitute ‘‘more than 

adequate remuneration,’’ we must 

compare the prices paid by EdF to 

Eurodif with the prices paid by EdF to 

its other suppliers.

5504 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

Due to the difference in the pricing 

structure between Eurodif and EdF, as 

compared with the pricing between EdF 

and its other suppliers, it is important 

to make certain adjustments to our 

comparison. Unlike most other 

customers, EdF provides its own energy 

for Eurodif to use when producing LEU 

for EdF. In 2001, Eurodif paid EdF for 

the energy it used and re-billed EdF an 

identical amount. In 2002, Eurodif and 

EdF changed their billing practice so 

that EdF now pays Eurodif in energy for 

the energy Eurodif uses to produce 

EdF’s LEU. For both years, Eurodif 

charged EdF for the operational costs 

associated with the production of its 

LEU. As EdF does not supply electricity 

to its other LEU suppliers, these 

suppliers charge EdF a single price per 

separative work unit (SWU). Thus, we 

have used this single price per SWU as 

our benchmark price. In order to make 

a proper comparison between the 

benchmark price and the government 

price (i.e., the price paid by EdF), the 

Department has included both 

operational and energy prices paid by 

EdF to Eurodif.

As part of the arrangement for 

obtaining LEU, customers often provide 

an amount of natural uranium equal to 

that which theoretically went into the 

LEU they are purchasing. The record 

does not contain information on the 

value of the natural uranium provided 

by EdF or other customers to Eurodif. In 

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum 

from Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD 

Enforcement II to Faryar Shirzad, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration concerning the Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Low Enriched Uranium 

from France - Calendar Year 1999’’

(Decision Memorandum) dated 

December 13, 2001, we assumed that the 

value of all natural uranium is the same. 

See Decision Memorandum at 5. In 

making the comparison in this review 

we have continued to assume that the 

value of all natural uranium is the same 

in instances where EdF supplied its 

own feed material for enrichment. Thus, 

we have not included a value for the 

natural uranium component of the LEU 

delivered to EdF by Eurodif .

In order to determine whether a 

benefit was provided to Eurodif during 

the POR, we calculated a per-SWU price 

for both the energy and operational 

components of the LEU purchased by 

EdF from Eurodif based on the price for 

the component divided by the quantity 

of SWU. To derive the per-SWU energy 

component cost under the new billing 

arrangement in 2002 where we did not 

have a euro price, we multiplied the 

MwH/SWU rate paid by EdF to Eurodif 

by Eurodif’s cost of electricity from EdF. 

After adding these two components 

together, we compared the per-SWU 

price paid to Eurodif by EdF during 

each calendar year with the per-SWU 

price paid by EdF to its other LEU 

suppliers during each calendar year. 

Based on our analysis, we preliminarily 

determine that prices paid by EdF to 

Eurodif were higher than prices EdF 

paid to its other suppliers. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 771(5)(E)(iv) of 

the Act, we preliminarily determine that 

this program conferred countervailable 

benefits to Eurodif during both 2001 and 

2002. Because EdF’s purchases of this 

product from Eurodif are not 

exceptional but, rather, are made on an 

ongoing basis from year to year, we 

determine that the benefit conferred 

under this program is recurring under 

section 351.524(c) of the Department’s 

Regulations. Therefore, the benefit is 

expensed in the year of receipt, i.e., the 

year in which the purchases are made. 

To calculate the benefit conferred to 

Eurodif, we multiplied the calculated 

price differential by the quantity of 

SWU component of the LEU purchased 

from Eurodif by EdF during each 

calendar year.

Although the cash component of 

EdF’s LEU purchases from Eurodif was 

paid on a ‘‘per-SWU’’ basis, the 

contracts also contained provisions for 

the natural uranium component of the 

LEU as well as the electricity used by 

Eurodif in the production of EdF’s LEU. 

As stated above, we have determined 

that the value of the natural uranium 

component of the LEU produced by 

Eurodif from EdF’s feed material is 

equal to that produced by EdF’s other 

suppliers from EdF’s feed material. 

Therefore, we did not need to calculate 

a price differential for the natural 

uranium component of the LEU. Rather, 

the natural uranium components of the 

LEU cancelled each other out.

Also, we calculated an additional 

benefit from sales pursuant to the 

contract listed in Exhibit 16 J of 

Eurodif’s June 19, 2003 questionnaire 

response. For a more detailed 

discussion, see Memorandum on 

‘‘Eurodif’s sales pursuant to the contract 

provided in Exhibit 16J of the June 19, 

2003 questionnaire response,’’ dated 

January 29, 2004, in the case file in the 

Central Records Unit, main Commerce 

building, room B-099 (the CRU).

Next, we multiplied the benefit 

amount by the sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States, 

divided by total sales, and divided the 

result by sales that entered U.S. 

Customs during calendar years 2001 and 

2002 respectively. Thus, we have 

calculated the ad valorem rate for this 

program using the following formula:

A = B * (C/D)



E

Where:

A = Ad Valorem Rate

B = Subsidy Benefit

C = Sales of Subject Merchandise to the 

United States During the Calendar 

Year

D = Total Sales During the Calendar 

Year (including COGEMA sales on 

behalf of Eurodif)

E = Sales That Entered U.S. Customs 

During the Calendar Year

On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine a net countervailable subsidy 

under this program of 6.20 percent ad 

valorem for 2001 and 1.40 percent ad 

valorem for 2002 for Eurodif.

2. Exoneration/Reimbursement of 

Corporate Income Taxes

Under a specific governmental 

agreement entered into upon Eurodif’s 

creation, Eurodif is only liable for 

income taxes on the portion of its 

income relating to the percentage of its 

private ownership. Eurodif is fully 

exonerated from payment of corporate 

income taxes corresponding to the 

percentage of its foreign government 

ownership and is eligible for a 

reimbursement of the amount of 

corporate income taxes corresponding to 

its percentage of French government 

ownership. Based on this governmental 

agreement, Eurodif was exonerated from 

a portion of its 2000 and 2001 corporate 

income taxes filed during calendar years 

2001 and 2002. This tax exemption 

constitutes a financial contribution 

within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Further, because 

the tax exemption is limited to Eurodif, 

the benefit is specific in accordance 

with section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. In 

1999 LEU, we found this program to be 

countervailable. See Decision 

Memorandum at 7.

As noted above, Eurodif was also 

eligible for a reimbursement of the 

amount of income taxes corresponding 

to its percentage of French government 

ownership. Eurodif reported that the 

portion of its taxes attributable to 

French government ownership was paid 

in 2000 and 2001, and was reimbursed 

in 2001 and 2002. In 1999 LEU, we 

found this program to be 

countervailable. See Decision 

Memorandum at 7. No new information 

has been provided in this review to 

warrant reconsideration of these 

determinations.

To calculate the benefit conferred 

upon Eurodif from both parts of this 

program, we divided the amount of 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5505

exonerated and reimbursed taxes in 

each calendar year by Eurodif’s total 

sales during that calendar year. We 

adjusted Eurodif’s sales denominator 

using the methodology described in the 

‘‘Purchase at Prices that Constitute 

‘‘More Than Adequate Remuneration’’

section, above. On this basis, we 

preliminarily determine a net 

countervailable subsidy to Eurodif from 

this program of 0.34 percent ad valorem

in 2001 and 1.63 percent ad valorem in 

2002.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of 

the Act, we conducted verification at 

Eurodif and the GOF on November 11 

through November 14, 2003.

Preliminary Results of Review

In accordance with section 

703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have 

calculated an individual rate for 

Eurodif, the only company under 

review, for 2001 and 2002. We 

preliminarily determine that the total 

estimated net countervailable subsidy 

rate is 6.54 percent ad valorem for 2001 

and 3.03 percent ad valorem for 2002.

If the final results of this review 

remain the same as these preliminary 

results, the Department intends to 

instruct the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection(CBP), within 15 days of 

publication of the final results of this 

review, to liquidate shipments of low 

enriched uranium from France by 

Eurodif entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption from May 

14, 2001 through September 11, 2001 at 

6.54 percent ad valorem and from 

February 13, 2002 through December 31, 

2002 at 3.03 percent ad valorem of the 

f.o.b. invoice price. The Department also 

intends to instruct CBP to collect cash 

deposits of estimated countervailing 

duties at 3.03 percent ad valorem of the 

f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of 

the subject merchandise from the 

reviewed company, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review.

Because the URAA replaced the 

general rule in favor of a country-wide 

rate with a general rule in favor of 

individual rates for investigated and 

reviewed companies, the procedures for 

establishing countervailing duty rates, 

including those for non-reviewed 

companies, are now essentially the same 

as those in antidumping cases, except as 

provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of 

the Act. The requested review will 

normally cover only those companies 

specifically named. See 19 CFR 

351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(c), for all companies for which 

a review was not requested, duties must 

be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and 

cash deposits must continue to be 

collected, at the rate previously ordered. 

As such, the countervailing duty cash 

deposit rate applicable to a company 

can no longer change, except pursuant 

to a request for a review of that 

company. See Federal-Mogul 

Corporation and The Torrington 

Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 

782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council 

v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 

1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e), 

the antidumping regulation on 

automatic assessment, which is 

identical to 19 CFR 351.212(c)(ii)(2). 

Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all 

companies except those covered by this 

review will be unchanged by the results 

of this review.

We will instruct CBP to continue to 

collect cash deposits for non-reviewed 

companies at the most recent companyspecific or country-wide rate applicable 

to the company. Accordingly, the cash 

deposit rates that will be applied to nonreviewed companies covered by this 

order will be the rate for that company 

established in the most recently 

completed administrative proceeding. 

See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination and Notice of 

Countervailing Duty Order: Low 

Enriched Uranium from France, 67 FR 

6889 (February 13, 2002). These rates 

shall apply to all non-reviewed 

companies until a review of a company 

assigned these rates is requested.

Public Comment

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the 

Department will disclose to parties to 

the proceeding any calculations 

performed in connection with these 

preliminary results within five days 

after the date of the public 

announcement of this notice. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties 

may submit written comments in 

response to these preliminary results. 

Unless otherwise indicated by the 

Department, case briefs must be 

submitted within 30 days after the date 

of publication of this notice, and 

rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments 

raised in case briefs, must be submitted 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing case briefs, unless 

otherwise specified by the Department. 

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. Parties submitting case and/

or rebuttal briefs are requested to 

provide the Department copies of the 

public version on disk. Case and 

rebuttal briefs must be served on 

interested parties in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date 

of publication of this notice, interested 

parties may request a public hearing on 

arguments to be raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary 

specifies otherwise, the hearing, if 

requested, will be held two days after 

the date for submission of rebuttal 

briefs, that is, thirty-seven days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results.

Representatives of parties to the 

proceeding may request disclosure of 

proprietary information under 

administrative protective order no later 

than 10 days after the representative’s 

client or employer becomes a party to 

the proceeding, but in no event later 

than the date the case briefs, under 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The 

Department will publish the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

arguments made in any case or rebuttal 

briefs.

This administrative review is issued 

and published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 

1677f(I)(1)).

Dated: January 29, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2523 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[Docket No. 040129030–4030–01] 

Special American Business Internship 

Training Program (SABIT)

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration (ITA), U.S. Department 

of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This Notice announces 

availability of funds for the Special 

American Business Internship Training 

Program (SABIT), for training business 

executives and scientists (also referred 

to as ‘‘Interns’’) from Eurasia (see 

program description for eligible 

countries). The amount of financial 

assistance available for the program is 

$1,500,000.

DATES: Applications must be received 

by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 23, 

2004. Processing of complete 

applications takes approximately three