This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

67887

Vol. 69, No. 224

Monday, November 22, 2004

1Additional information about the study, 

including comments to the notice and the 

announcement of the contract to perform the study, 

is available on the GIPSA Web site (http://

www.usda.gov/gipsa/psp/issues/livemarketstudy/

livestock_marketing_study.htm).

2RTI International is a trade name of Research 

Triangle Institute.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration 

Notice of Request for New Information 

Collection

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of reopening and 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We announced in the Federal 

Register our intention to submit to the 

Office of Management and Budget two 

new information collection activities to 

support a large livestock and meat 

marketing study. That notice was 

published on September 9, 2004 (69 FR 

54629–54630), and comments were due 

on November 8, 2004. This notice 

announces our intention to reopen that 

comment period until December 3, 

2004.

DATES: We will consider comments that 

we receive by December 3, 2004.

ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit 

comments on this notice. You may 

submit comments by any of the 

following methods: 

• E-mail: Send comments via 

electronic mail to 

comments.gipsa@usda.gov.

• Mail: Send hardcopy written 

comments to Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 

1647–S, Washington, DC 20250–3604. 

• Fax: Send comments by facsimile 

transmission to: (202) 690–2755. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

comments to: Tess Butler, GIPSA, 

USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Room 1647–S, Washington, DC 

20250–3604. 

Instructions: All comments should 

make reference to the date and page 

number of this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

Background Documents: Information 

collection package and other documents 

relating to this action will be available 

for public inspection in the above office 

during regular business hours. 

Read Comments: All comments will 

be available for public inspection in the 

above office during regular business 

hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Schneider, Economist, USDA, 

GIPSA, (202) 720–7455, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Room 

1642–S, Washington, DC 20250–3647, 

or via e-mail at 

Roger.E.Schneider@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Grain 

Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 

Administration (GIPSA) of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

administers the Packers and Stockyards 

Act of 1921, as amended and 

supplemented (7 U.S.C. 181–229) (P&S 

Act). The P&S Act prohibits unfair, 

deceptive, and fraudulent practices by 

market agencies, dealers, stockyards, 

packers, swine contractors, and live 

poultry dealers in the livestock, 

meatpacking, and poultry industries. In 

fiscal year 2003, GIPSA received $4.5 

million in appropriations for a packer 

concentration study, which will be a 

broad study of marketing practices in 

the entire livestock and red meat 

industries (Pub. L. 108–7, 117 Stat. 22). 

The study will address many questions 

and concerns that have been raised 

about changes in the structure and 

business practices in the livestock and 

meat industries. We published a notice 

announcing the study and describing 

the approach that we planned for the 

study on May 30, 2003 (68 FR 32455–

32458).1

More specifically, the study will: (1) 

Identify and classify spot and 

alternative marketing arrangements; (2) 

describe terms, availability, and reasons 

for use of spot and alternative marketing 

arrangements and associated prices; (3) 

determine extent of use, analyze price 

differences, and analyze short-run spot 

market price effects of alternative 

marketing arrangements; (4) measure 

and compare costs and benefits 

associated with spot and alternative 

marketing arrangements; and (5) analyze 

the implications of alternative 

marketing arrangements for the 

livestock and meat marketing system. 

In addition to publishing the notice 

announcing the information collection 

activities, on October 4, 2004, we sent 

a letter to packers and processors 

notifying them of the requirement to 

continue to maintain the required 

information. Subsequent to that, RTI 

International (RTI),2 the contractor 

responsible for the information 

collection activities, began pre-testing 

data collection procedures with a 

limited number (9 or fewer of each type) 

of respondents.

We received six comments to the 

notice published on September 9, 2004 

(69 FR 54629–54630). Three of those 

comments requested an extension of the 

comment period. The requests came 

from two industry organizations whose 

members will be required to provide the 

information for which comments were 

requested and an industry member who 

will be required to provide information 

for which comments were requested. 

The extension requests ranged from 2 

weeks to 90 days. One of the three 

commenters specified that additional 

time is needed to provide constructive 

comments. 

This notice reopens and extends the 

comment period on two information 

collection packages that we are 

preparing to submit to the Office of 

Management and Budget to collect 

information for the study. The first 

information collection package will 

cover transactions data on procurement 

and sales from meat packers, feeders, 

dealers, meat processors, food 

wholesalers, food retailers, food service 

operations, and meat exporters. The 

second information collection package 

will cover surveys about the use of spot 

and alternative marketing arrangements 

among cattle, hog, and lamb producers, 

meat packers, meat processors, food 

wholesalers, food retailers, food service 

operations, and meat exporters. 

Title: Livestock and Meat Marketing 

Study; Transactions Data and Survey of 

Spot and Alternative Marketing 

Arrangements. 

OMB Number: New collection. 

Expiration Date of Approval: New 

collection. 

Type of Request: New. 

Abstract: To conduct this study it is 

necessary to collect data on 

67888 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2004 / Notices 

3The recordkeeping requirements for the data 

covered by this information collection activity have 

been previously approved separately under OMB 

control number 0580–0015.

procurement and sales transactions from 

a sample of meat packers, meat 

processors, food wholesalers, food 

retailers, food service operations, and 

meat exporters. The establishments 

selected for the sample will be asked to 

provide the requested data in an 

electronic format, to the greatest extent 

practicable.

Response to this data collection, 

which constitutes a special report, will 

be required for meat packers and meat 

processors (7 U.S.C. 222).3 The 

establishments will be asked to provide 

daily transactions data for procurement 

and sales for a 2.5-year period. 

Additionally, meat packers will be 

asked to provide summaries of 

operations data (profit and loss 

statements).

Response to this data collection will 

be voluntary for food wholesalers, food 

retailers, food service operations, and 

meat exporters. The establishments will 

be asked to provide transactions data for 

procurement and sales for a 2.5-year 

period in an aggregated format to reduce 

the burden. 

An example of some the information 

that will be required is shown in the 

following table for beef packers. More or 

less information may be required and 

different information may be required 

depending upon the type of livestock or 

meat the respondent purchases or sells, 

and the type of activity (for example, 

slaughter, processing, or wholesaling) 

conducted by the respondent. The 

information will be requested in 

electronic format; we are not specifying 

how the respondents must keep the 

information, but, as shown in the 

following table, will provide a suggested 

format for providing the information. 

Respondents providing the information 

in another format will be asked to 

provide a data dictionary to explain 

their format. The information collection 

package contains the detailed 

information collection requirements for 

each type of respondent. We will revise 

the requested information based on the 

results of the pre-test and public 

comments, as appropriate.

TABLE 1.—PROCUREMENT DATA FIELDS

[A transaction is defined as the purchase of a pen/lot of cattle] 

Field name Description/suggested format for data 

ID Number .......................... ID number used by establishment to identify individual lot or transaction. 

Plant Name ......................... Name of plant procuring cattle. 

Purchase Date .................... Date lot of cattle was purchased from seller (yyyy/mm/dd). 

Kill Date .............................. Date first cattle in lot were slaughtered (yyyy/mm/dd). 

Seller Name ........................ Name of seller. 

Seller City ........................... City location of the feedlot where the cattle were fed (Not the address or location of the owner of the cattle). 

Seller State ......................... State location of the feedlot where the cattle were fed (Not the address or location of the owner of the cattle). 

Seller County ...................... County location of the feedlot where the cattle were fed (Not the address or location of the owner of the cattle). 

Seller Zip ............................ Zip code of the feedlot where the cattle were fed (Not the address or location of the owner of the cattle). 

Number of Head ................. Number of live cattle in this lot (Exclude condemned and dead). 

Condemn ............................ Number of condemned and dead cattle in this lot. 

Cattle Type ......................... 1 = 95% or more of this lot was beef cattle; 2 = 95% or more of this lot was dairy cattle; 3 = Mixed beef and dairy 

cattle. 

Steers ................................. Percentage or Number of steers in this lot. 

Heifers ................................ Percentage or Number of heifers in this lot. 

Bulls .................................... Percentage or Number of bulls in this lot. 

Cows ................................... Percentage or Number of cows in this lot. 

Stag .................................... Percentage or Number of stags in this lot. 

Bullocks .............................. Percentage or Number of bullocks in this lot. 

Heiferettes .......................... Percentage or Number of heiferettes in this lot. 

Category Units .................... 1 = Number in the lot (for example, number of steers, heifers, etc); 2 = Percentage in the lot (for example, percentage of steers, heifers, etc). 

Live Weight ......................... Net live or actual purchase weight for this lot (Equal to gross live weight minus pencil shrink). 

Pencil Shrink ...................... Shrink percentage used to calculate purchase weight. 

Hot Weight .......................... Total hot weight of this lot (carcass weight or dressed weight, if weighed pre-chill). 

Cold Weight ........................ Total cold weight of this lot (if weighed post-chill). 

Weight Units ....................... 1 = Pounds; 2 = Hundred weight (cwt); 3 = Tons. 

Total Cost ........................... Total delivered cost of this lot (Includes cost of the cattle, transportation, commission, feed costs, and hide premiums charged to the packer by the seller). 

Shipping Cost ..................... Total transportation cost paid by packer (0 = if cost was not paid by packer). 

Commission Cost ............... Total commission cost paid by packer (0 = if cost was not paid by packer). 

Feed Cost ........................... Total feed cost paid by packer (0 = if cost was not paid by packer). 

Hide Premium ..................... Total hide premium paid by packer (0 = if no premium was paid by packer). 

Prime .................................. Percentage of this lot that were Quality grade Prime. 

Choice ................................ Percentage of this lot that were Quality grade Choice. 

Upper Choice ..................... Percentage of this lot that were in the Upper 2/3 Choice. 

Lower Choice ..................... Percentage of this lot that were in the Lower 1/3 Choice. 

Select .................................. Percentage of this lot that were Quality grade Select. 

Standard ............................. Percentage of this lot that were Quality grade Standard. 

Other ................................... Percentage of this lot that were Quality grade of something other than Prime, Choice, Choice Upper 2/3, Choice 

Lower 1/3, Select, or Standard. 

Quality Grade Units ............ 1 = Live weight; 2 = Hot weight; 3 = Cold weight; 4 = Number of head. 

Dark Cutter ......................... Percentage or Number of cattle classified as dark cutters. 

Dark Cutter Units ................ 1 = Number in the lot; 2 = Percentage in the lot. 

Yield Grade 1 ..................... Percentage of this lot that were Yield Grade 1. 

Yield Grade 2 ..................... Percentage of this lot that were Yield Grade 2. 

Yield Grade 3 ..................... Percentage of this lot that were Yield Grade 3. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2004 / Notices 67889

TABLE 1.—PROCUREMENT DATA FIELDS—Continued

[A transaction is defined as the purchase of a pen/lot of cattle] 

Field name Description/suggested format for data 

Yield Grade 4 ..................... Percentage of this lot that were Yield Grade 4. 

Yield Grade 5 ..................... Percentage of this lot that were Yield Grade 5. 

Yield Grade Other .............. Percentage of this lot that were Yield Grade other than 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. 

Yield Grade Units ............... 1 = Live weight; 2 = Hot weight; 3 = Cold weight; 4 = Number of head. 

% Heavy Weight ................. Percentage of cattle in lot that was classified heavy weight. 

Heavy Weight Units ............ 1 = Live weight; 2 = Hot weight; 3 = Cold weight; 4 = Number of head. 

Heavy Weight Limit ............ Maximum weight allowed before cattle were classified heavy weight. 

% Light Weight ................... Percentage of cattle in lot that was classified light weight. 

Light Weight Units .............. 1 = Live weight; 2 = Hot weight; 3 = Cold weight; 4 = Number of head. 

Light Weight Limit ............... Minimum weight allowed before cattle were classified light weight. 

Age 30+ .............................. Percentage of cattle in lot that was 30 months of age and older. 

Age Units ............................ 1 = Live weight; 2 = Hot weight; 3 = Cold weight; 4 = Number of head. 

Kosher ................................ 1 = Cattle in this lot were eligible for Kosher status; 2 = Cattle in this lot were not eligible for Kosher status. 

Halal ................................... 1 = Cattle in this lot were eligible for Halal status; 2 = Cattle in this lot were not eligible for Halal status. 

Certification Program .......... 1 = Cattle were raised under the requirements of a certification program (Certified Angus Beef, Certified Hereford 

Beef, etc.); 2 = Cattle were not raised under the requirements of a certification program. 

Procurement Method .......... 1 = Spot-Market/Open Market (cattle purchased directly from feedlot, other seller, or at public markets within 2 

weeks of kill date); 2 = Forward Contract (packer contracts with seller to purchase lot of cattle at either a fixed 

or basis price; contract is entered into at any time between placement of cattle on feed and 2 weeks prior to kill 

date); 3 = Packer-Fed/Owned (packer owned cattle fed for slaughter at either custom feedlot or packer owned 

or controlled feedlot); 4 = Marketing Agreement (a long-term arrangement where packer agrees to purchase 

specified number of cattle per specified time period such as week, month, or year); 5 = Joint Venture or Shared 

Ownership 6 = Other (purchasing method not captured in other categories). 

Pricing Method ................... 1 = Negotiated Privately; 2 = Open Bidding; 3 = Sealed Bid; 4 = Formula Pricing; 5 = Internal Transfer Price; 6 = 

Other (pricing method not captured in other categories). 

Valuation Method ............... 1 = Live weight, fixed price, not dependent on grade and yield; 2 = Carcass weight (hot or dressed weight), fixed 

price, not dependent on grade and yield; 3 = Carcass weight (hot or dressed weight), dependent on carcass 

grade and yield or grid value; 4 = Other (valuation method not captured in other categories). 

In addition, to complete this study it 

is necessary to conduct surveys of cattle, 

hog, and lamb producers, feeders, 

dealers, meat packers, meat processors, 

food wholesalers, food retailers, food 

service operations, and meat exporters. 

Participation in the surveys will be 

voluntary. Surveys will be mailed, with 

initial and follow-up contacts by 

telephone. The surveys will collect 

information on terms and frequency of 

use of alternative marketing 

arrangements; volume of livestock and 

meat transferred with alternative 

marketing arrangements, pricing 

methods for livestock and meat; reasons 

for using alternative marketing 

arrangements; and the effects of 

alternative marketing arrangements on 

costs and efficiencies, product quality, 

and risk shifting. The survey questions 

will be targeted to the appropriate 

industry segment to reduce burden. The 

surveys will request information about 

the respondents’ operations for the 

previous fiscal year. 

All data collection requests will 

include a pledge of confidentiality and 

the data will be collected exclusively for 

statistical purposes consistent with the 

provisions of the Confidential 

Information Protection and Statistical 

Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA). In 

addition, the transactions data collected 

from meat packers and processors (part 

1) will be subject to the confidentiality 

restrictions in the P&S Act. Analysis 

datasets created using the transactions 

data will be stored in an encrypted 

format. Individual data records will not 

include the identity of the 

establishment. The study findings will 

be reported to the public only in 

aggregated form so that individual 

establishments cannot be identified. 

(1) Transactions Data 

Estimate of Burden: The public 

reporting burden for this collection of 

information is estimated to average 40 

hours per response. 

Respondents (Affected Public): Meat 

packers, meat processors, food 

wholesalers, food retailers, food service 

operations, and meat exporters. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

400. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 16,000 hours. 

Total Costs: Transactions data 

reporting $435,072 for all 

establishments combined. Calculated as 

follows: (16,000 hours) × ($27.192 per 

hour) = $435,072. 

(2) Spot and Alternative Marketing 

Arrangements Survey 

Estimate of Burden: The public 

reporting burden for this collection of 

information is estimated to average 60 

minutes per response. 

Respondents (Affected Public): Cattle, 

hog, and lamb producers, feeders, 

dealers, meat packers, meat processors, 

food wholesalers, food retailers, food 

service operations, and meat exporters. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

3,800. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 3,800 hours. 

Total Costs: Survey reporting 

$139,080 for all establishments 

combined. Calculated as follows: (3,800 

hours) × ($36.60 per hour) = $139,080. 

Copies of this information collection 

assessment can be obtained from Tess 

Butler; see ADDRESSES section for 

contact information. 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) 

and its implementing regulations (5 CFR 

1320.8(d)(1)(i)), we specifically request 

comments on: 

(a) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

67890 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2004 / Notices 

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(d) Ways to minimize the burden on 

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. 

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.

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506, 5 CFR 1320.8, 

and Pub. L. 108–7, 117 Stat. 22.

Dated: November 17, 2004. 

Donna Reifschneider, 

Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–25803 Filed 11–19–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A–588–046)

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review.

SUMMARY: On October 21, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published a notice of 

preliminary results of its changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty finding on 

polychloroprene rubber (PR) from Japan 

in which we preliminarily determined 

that Showa Denko K.K. (SDK) is not the 

successor–in-interest to the joint 

venture of Showa DDE Manufacturing 

K.K. (SDEM) and DDE Japan Kabushiki 

Kaisha (DDE Japan) (collectively, 

SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture). See 

Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Polychloroprene 

Rubber from Japan, 69 FR 61796 

(October 21, 2004) (Preliminary Results). 

We gave interested parties, SDK and 

DuPont Dow Elastomers L.L.C. 

(DuPont), the petitioner in this 

proceeding, the opportunity to comment 

on the Preliminary Results. We received 

a comment from the petitioner 

concurring with our preliminary results. 

No additional comments were received. 

Therefore, for these final results, the 

Department is adopting its preliminary 

determination that SDK is not the 

successor–in-interest to SDEM/DDE 

Japan joint venture.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 22, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev 

Primor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 6, 1973, the Department 

of Treasury published in the Federal 

Register (38 FR 33593) the antidumping 

finding on PR from Japan. On January 

14, 2004, SDK submitted a letter stating 

that it is the successor–in-interest to the 

SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture and, as 

such, entitled to receive the same 

antidumping duty treatment previously 

accorded to the joint venture (i.e., zero 

cash deposit). See Notice of Final 

Changed Circumstances Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: 

Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan, 67 

FR 58 (January 2, 2002), (Changed 

Circumstances). In that same letter, SDK 

explained that on November 1, 2002, the 

SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture was 

dissolved. Prior to the joint venture’s 

dissolution, SDK and DuPont each 

owned 50 percent of the joint venture. 

SDK, therefore, requested that the 

Department conduct an expedited 

changed circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty finding on PR from 

Japan pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of 

the Tariff Act (the Act), as amended, 

and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). However, 

because the submitted record 

supporting SDK’s claims was deficient, 

the Department found that an expedited 

review was impracticable and, on March 

1, 2004, issued a notice of initiation 

without the preliminary results. See 

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan, 69 

FR 9586 (March 1, 2004).

In response to the Department’s 

supplemental questionnaire, on March 

10 and 19, 2004, SDK provided the 

Department with supplemental 

questionnaire responses. Additionally, 

on February 4 and May 3, 2004, DuPont 

notified the Department that it opposes 

SDK’s request to be considered the 

successor–in-interest to the SDEM/DDE 

Japan joint venture. In particular, 

DuPont argued that differences between 

the corporate structures, distribution 

channels, price structure, and customer 

base preclude SDK from being 

considered the successor–in-interest to 

the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture.

From August 25 through August 27, 

2004, the Department conducted a 

verification of information in 

connection with this changed 

circumstances review at SDK’s offices in 

Kawasaki, Japan. On September 20, 

2004, the Department issued its 

Verification Report. See Memorandum 

from Zev Primor to the File 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review of 

Polychloroprene Rubber (PR) from 

Japan: Verification Report for Showa 

Denko K.K. (SDK) Regarding 

Successorship,’’ September 20, 2004 

(Verification Report). On October 21, 

2004, we preliminarily determined that 

given the totality of the considered 

factors, the record evidence 

demonstrates that SDK is a new entity 

that operates in a significantly different 

manner from the SDEM/DDE Japan joint 

venture. Consequently, we preliminarily 

determined that SDK should not be 

given the same antidumping duty 

treatment as the joint venture, i.e., zero 

percent antidumping duty cash deposit 

rate. Instead, SDK, as a new entity, 

should continue to be assigned as its 

cash deposit rate the ‘‘all others’’ rate, 

which in this proceeding is 55 percent. 

See Preliminary Results. On October 28, 

2004, DuPont submitted a letter to the 

Department stating that the 

Department’s preliminary determination 

that SDK is not the successor–in-interest 

to the SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture is 

well–founded in both law and fact. On 

the same date, SDK filed a letter stating 

that it would not comment on the 

preliminary results nor participate 

further in the proceeding.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are 

shipments of PR, an oil resistant 

synthetic rubber also known as 

polymerized chlorobutadiene or 

neoprene, currently classifiable under 

items 4002.42.00, 4002.49.00, 

4003.00.00, 4462.15.21, and 4462.00.00 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS item 

numbers are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes. The written 

description remains dispositive.

Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review

DuPont’s comment fully concurs with 

the Department’s preliminary 

determination and raises no additional 

issues. For the reasons stated in the 

Preliminary Results, we continue to find 

that SDK is not the successor–in-interest 

to SDEM/DDE Japan joint venture. We 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border