54094 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Notices

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin (percent)

CBCC ........................................ 0.37

CCM .......................................... 35.23

Eletrosilex ................................. 6.68

Minasligas ................................. 43.53

RIMA ......................................... 51.23

The Department shall determine, and

the U. S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department shall issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements shall be effective upon

publication of this notice of amended

final results of review for all shipments

of silicon metal from Brazil 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withdrawn from warehouse, for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) the cash deposit

rates for the reviewed companies named

above will be the rates published in

these amended final results; (2) for

previously investigated or reviewed

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in these reviews, or

the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigations, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in these reviews, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be 91.06

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Metal from Brazil, 56

FR 26977 (June 12, 1991).

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR § 353.26 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 notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with section 353.34(d) of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

These amended final results of review

and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(1)) and section 353.28(c) of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: October 14, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–27632 Filed 10–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–806]

Silicon Metal From Brazil; Amended

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is amending its final

results of review, published on January

14, 1997, of the antidumping duty order

on silicon metal from Brazil, to reflect

the correction of ministerial errors in

those final results. These amended final

results are for the review covering the

period July 1, 1993 through June 30,

1994.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred

Baker, Alain Letort, or John Kugelman,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group III—Office

8, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone 202/

482–2924 (Baker), 202/482–4243

(Letort), or 202/482–0649 (Kugelman),

fax 202/482–1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Background

The Department published the final

results of the third administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on silicon metal from Brazil on January

14, 1997 (62 FR 1954) (Third Review

Final Results), covering the period July

1, 1993 through June 30, 1994. The

respondents are Companhia Brasileira

Carbureto de Ca ́lcio (CBCC), Companhia

Ferroligas Minas Gerais—Minasligas

(Minasligas), Eletrosilex Belo Horizonte

(Eletrosilex), Rima Industrial S.A.

(RIMA), and Camargo Corre ̃a Metais

(CCM). The petitioners are American

Alloys, Inc., Elken Metals, Co., Globe

Metallurgical, Inc., SMI Group, and

SKW Metals & Alloys.

On February 12, 1997, the petitioners

filed clerical error allegations with

respect to CCM and Minasligas. The

same day we received clerical error

allegations from respondent CCM. On

February 18, 1997, we received rebuttal

comments from the petitioners

regarding CCM’s clerical error

allegations. Pursuant to the CIT’s order,

we are now addressing the ministerial

allegations and amending our final

results of the third review. See

American Silicon Technologies et al., v.

United States, Slip Op. 97–114, August

18, 1997.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is silicon metal from Brazil

containing at least 96.00 percent but less

than 99.99 percent silicon by weight.

Also covered by this review is silicon

metal from Brazil containing between

89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by

weight but which contains a higher

aluminum content than the silicon

metal containing at least 96.00 percent

but less than 99.99 percent silicon by

weight. Silicon metal is currently

provided for under subheadings

2804.69.10 and 2804.50 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) as a

chemical product, but is commonly

referred to as a metal. Semiconductor

grade silicon (silicon metal containing

by weight not less than 99.99 percent

silicon and provided for in subheading

2804.61.00 of the HTS) is not subject to

the order. HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and for U.S.

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive as to the

scope of product coverage.

Clerical Error Allegations

Comment 1

CCM argues that the Department erred

in its calculation of its U.S. imputed

credit expenses in three ways. First, it

argues that the Department should have
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Notices 54095

used CCM’s ‘‘actual credit’’ expense,

rather than an imputed figure. (The

‘‘actual credit expense’’ figure reported

by CCM reflects the actual interest

charged on its export credit line for its

U.S. shipment.) CCM argues that this

‘‘actual credit expense’’ amount is the

most accurate, transaction-specific

measure of CCM’s interest expense in

connection with its U.S. sale. Second,

CCM argues that if the Department

continues to believe that it should use

an imputed credit figure, it should use

CCM’s bill of lading date as the start of

the credit period, rather than the date of

shipment from CCM’s factory. It bases

this argument on the fact that title

transfers from CCM to the U.S.

purchaser on the bill of lading date.

Thus, CCM argues, the credit period

should begin on the bill of lading date

because a credit expense cannot be

incurred until CCM is no longer in

possession of the merchandise. Third,

CCM argues that the Department erred

in its calculation of credit by not

removing from the U.S. price the value

of the ICMS tax (a value-added tax

(VAT)) that the Brazilian government

assessed on the sale. Doing so was an

error, CCM argues, because in its

response to comment 10 of the final

results the Department stated that its

practice ‘‘is to calculate imputed credit

exclusive of VAT.’’ See Third Review

Final Results at 1961.

Petitioners argue that the Department

made no clerical error in calculating an

imputed figure for CCM’s credit

expenses or in using the date of

shipment from CCM’s plant as the start

of the credit period. They argue that the

Department specifically addressed these

issues in the final results of review

when it stated:

We disagree with CCM that we should use

its reported ‘‘actual expense’’ for U.S. credit.

The Department requires that the credit

expenses reflect the opportunity cost of the

entire period between shipment from the

plant and payment by the customer. That is

not the case for CCM’s reported ‘‘actual

expense.’’ The actual expense covers only a

portion of the imputed credit expense period.

Therefore, in these final results of review we

have calculated imputed credit using the

shipment date from CCM’s plant as given in

verification exhibit 11.

See Third Review Final Results at

1962.

Department’s Position: We agree with

both parties in part. We agree with

petitioners that we did specifically

address CCM’s first two contentions in

our final results of review. Thus,

calculating an imputed credit figure and

using the date of shipment from CCM’s

plant as the start of the credit period did

not constitute clerical errors. However,

we do agree with CCM that in the

calculation of U.S. imputed credit we

inadvertently included the ICMS tax

assessed on the sale. We have corrected

this error in these amended final results.

Comment 2

Petitioners argue that the Department

made a ministerial error in the cost test

for CCM. It states that the Department

made a number of changes to CCM’s

reported costs, and that when it made

these changes it gave the revised costs

the variable name COP. However, when

the Department performed the cost test,

petitioners argue, it used the variable

TOTCOP, which represents CCM’s

reported costs without any of the

intended changes.

Department’s Position: We agree, and

have corrected this error in these

amended final results of review.

Comment 3

Petitioners argue the Department

made a clerical error in its calculation

of Minasligas’ G&A expenses. It argues

that the Department incorrectly

transcribed the G&A expenses for one

month of the period of review (POR).

Department’s Position: We agree, and

have corrected this error in these

amended final results of review.

Comment 4

Petitioners argue that the Department

made a clerical error in converting

Minasligas’ brokerage, foreign inland

freight, and warehousing expenses from

Brazilian cruzeiros reais into U.S.

dollars. They argue that the Department

should have used the exchange rates of

the dates of shipment for these

expenses, rather than the exchange rates

of the dates of sale.

Department’s Position: We agree, and

have corrected this error in these

amended final results of review.

In addition to the changes made in

response to the above comments, we

have corrected an error in our

calculations for all respondents with

calculated margins. In our final results,

we calculated G&A and interest

expenses for the computation of COP/

CV using a COM figure inclusive of

VAT. In these amended final results we

have calculated G&A and interest

expenses using a COM figure exclusive

of VAT. See our amended final results

analysis memoranda for our revised

calculations.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we have

determined that the following margins

exist for the period July 1, 1993 through

June 30, 1994:

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent)

CBCC ........................................ 61.58

CCM .......................................... 35.23

Eletrosilex ................................. 38.39

Minasligas ................................. 0.00

RIMA ......................................... 91.06

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department shall issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements shall be effective upon

publication of this notice of amended

final results of review for all shipments

of silicon metal from Brazil 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) the cash deposit

rates for the reviewed companies named

above will be the rates published in the

amended final results of review for the

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from Brazil for the period July 1,

1994 through June 30, 1995, published

concurrently with this notice; (2) for

previously investigated or reviewed

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in these reviews, or

the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in these reviews, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be 91.06

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Metal from Brazil, 56

FR 26977 (June 12, 1991).

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR § 353.26 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 notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their

responsibility concerning the
54096 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Notices

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with section 353.34(d) of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

These amended final results of review

and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(1)) and section 353.28(c) of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: October 10, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–27633 Filed 10–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988;

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on

proposed and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before December 16,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Linda Engelmeier, Departmental

Forms Clearance Officer, Department of

Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington

DC 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection

instrument(s) and instructions should

be directed to Dan Viele, National

Marine Fisheries Service, 501 W. Ocean

Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802, (562–

980–4039).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

The Treaty on Fisheries Between the

Governments of Certain Pacific Island

States and the Government of the

United States of America, signed in Port

Moresby, Papua New Guinea, in 1987,

and its annexes, schedules and

implementing agreements, as amended

(Treaty), authorizes U.S. tuna vessels to

fish within fishing zones of a large

region of the Pacific Ocean. The South

Pacific Tuna Act (16 U.S.C. 973g and

973j) and U.S. implementing regulations

(50 CFR 282.3 and 282.5) authorize the

collection of information from

participants in the Treaty fishery.

Vessel operators who wish to

participate in the Treaty fishery must

submit annual license and registration

applications and periodic written

reports of catch and unloading of fish

from a licensed vessel. The information

collected is submitted to the Forum

Fisheries Agency (FFA) on forms

supplied by the FFA through the U.S.

government (National Marine Fisheries

Service [NMFS]). License and

registration application information is

used by FFA to determine the

operational capability and financial

responsibility of a vessel operator

interested in participating in the Treaty

fishery. Information obtained from

vessel catch and unloading reports is

used by FFA to assess fishing effort and

fishery resources in the region and to

track the amount of fish caught within

each Pacific island state’s exclusive

economic zone for fair disbursement of

Treaty monies. If the information is not

collected, the U.S. government will not

meet its obligations under the Treaty,

and the lack of fishing information will

result in poor management of the fishery

resource.

II. Method of Collection

The information is collected using the

forms required under the Treaty.

III. Data

OMB Number: 0648–0218.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Regular Submission.

Affected Public: Businesses

(respondents are the operators of U.S.

commercial tuna purse seine vessels

participating in the Treaty fishery).

Estimated Number of Respondents:

Approximately 32 vessels are expected

to participate in the fishery during each

year the Treaty is in effect, however, the

number may vary.

Estimated Time Per Response: The

estimated response times for the

reporting requirements are: .25 hours for

a license application form; .25 hours for

a registration application form; 1 hour

for a catch report form; and .5 hours for

an unloading log sheet.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: The estimated total annual

burden has decreased from 337 hours to

248 hours due to a decrease in the

number of respondents and responses.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to

Public: $576 for mailing costs.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden

(including hours and cost) of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval of this information collection;

they also will become a matter of public

record.

Dated: October 9, 1997.

Linda Engelmeier,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of Management and Organization.

[FR Doc. 97–27525 Filed 10–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Evaluation of Coastal Zone

Management Program and National

Estuarine Research Reserves

AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management, National Ocean

Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

DOC.

ACTION: Notice of intent to evaluate.

SUMMARY: The NOAA Office of Ocean

and Coastal Resource Management

(OCRM) announces its intent to evaluate

the performance of Hawaii and New

Jersey Coastal Zone Management

Programs and the Chesapeake Bay

National Estuarine Research Reserve in

Maryland.

These evaluations will be conducted

pursuant to sections 312 and 315 of the

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

(CZMA), as amended. The CZMA

requires a continuing review of the

performance of states with respect to

coastal program or estuarine research

reserve program implementation.

Evaluation of Coastal Zone Management

and Estuarine Research Reserve

Programs require findings concerning

the extent to which a state has met the

national objectives, adhered to its