Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices 67345

meeting is to brief the Committee on

Commission and regional programs and

approve plans for future activities.

Persons desiring additional

information, or planning a presentation

to the Committee, should contact John

Dulles, Director of the Rocky Mountain

Regional Office, 303–866–1400 (TDD

303–866–1049). Hearing-impaired

persons who will attend the meeting

and require the services of a sign

language interpreter should contact the

Regional Office at least ten (10) working

days before the scheduled date of the

meeting.

The meeting will be conducted

pursuant to the provisions of the rules

and regulations of the Commission.

Dated at Washington, DC, December 15,

1997.

Carol-Lee Hurley,

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 97–33557 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–817]

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate from Brazil: Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Extension of

Time Limit

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time

limit.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit of the final results of the

antidumping duty administrative review

of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate from Brazil. This review covers the

period August 1, 1995 through July 31,

1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Samantha Denenberg or Linda Ludwig,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group

III, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.; telephone (202) 482–

0414 or 482–3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to the

complexity of issues involved in this

case, it is not practicable to complete

this review within the original time

limit. The Department is extending the

time limit for completion of the final

results until March 8, 1998, in

accordance with Section 751(a)(3)(A) of

the Trade and Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act of 1994. See

memorandum to Robert S. LaRussa from

Joseph A. Spetrini regarding the

extension of the case deadline, dated

December 16, 1997.

This extension is in accordance with

751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(3)(A)).

Dated: December 16, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement

Group III.

[FR Doc. 97–33605 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Notice of Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Roller Chain, Other Than

Bicycle, From Japan (A–588–028)

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended final results of

antidumping duty administrative order.

SUMMARY: On November 10, 1997, the

Department of Commerce published the

final results of its administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on roller

chain, other than bicycle, from Japan.

This review covered six manufacturers/

exporters of roller chain in Japan during

the period April 1, 1995, through March

31, 1996: (1) Daido Kogyo Co., Ltd.

(Daido); (2) Enuma Chain Mfg. Co., Ltd.

(Enuma); (3) Izumi Chain Manufacturing

Co., Ltd. (Izumi); (4) Hitachi Metals

Techno Ltd. (Hitachi); (5) Pulton Chain

Co., Ltd. (Pulton); and (6) R.K. Excel

Co., Ltd. (RK) (collectively, the

respondents).

Interested parties submitted

ministerial error allegations with respect

to the final results of administrative

review for Daido and Enuma on

November 17, 1997. Based on the

correction of certain ministerial errors

made in the final results of review, we

are amending our final results of review

with respect to Daido and Enuma.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

Trentham or Jack Dulberger, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group II, Office Four,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4793 and (202) 482–5505,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) has now amended the final

results of this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Act are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all references to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations set forth at 19 CFR part 353

(1997).

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this

review is roller chain, other than

bicycle, from Japan. The term ‘‘roller

chain, other than bicycle,’’ as used in

this review, includes chain, with or

without attachments, whether or not

plated or coated, and whether or not

manufactured to American or British

standards, which is used for power

transmissions and/or conveyance. This

chain consists of a series of alternatelyassembled roller links and pin links in

which the pins articulate inside from

the bushings and the rollers are free to

turn on the bushings. Pins and bushings

are press fit in their respective link

plates. Chain may be single strand,

having one row of roller links, or

multiple strand, having more than one

row of roller links. The center plates are

located between the strands of roller

links. Such chain may be either single

or double pitch and may be used as

power transmission or conveyor chain.

This review also covers leaf chain,

which consists of a series of link plates

alternately assembled with pins in such

a way that the joint is free to articulate

between adjoining pitches. This review

further covers chain model numbers 25

and 35. Roller chain is currently

classified under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

subheading 7315.11.00 through

7619.90.00. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description remains dispositive.

Background

On November 10, 1997, we published

in the Federal Register our notice of

final results of administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on roller

chain, other than bicycle, from Japan

(Notice of Final Results and Partial

Recission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Roller Chain,

Other than Bicycle, from Japan (62 FR
67346 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices

60472, November 10, 1997) (Roller

Chain Final FR Notice)).

On November 17, 1997, two of the

respondents in the above-referenced

review, Enuma and Daido, submitted

timely written allegations that the

Department made certain ministerial

errors in the above-referenced

administrative review. Enuma alleged

two ministerial errors with respect to

the following: (1) unmatched identical

models within the 90–60 day rule

period and (2) a data input error by

respondent in the sales database. Daido

alleged five ministerial errors with

respect to the following three issues: (1)

unmatched identical models within the

90–60 day rule period, (2) unmatched

U.S. sales with identical sales in the

home market database, and (3) data

input errors by respondent in the sales

database. Petitioner did not allege the

existence of ministerial errors, nor has

petitioner commented on respondent’s

allegations. For a complete discussion of

the allegations, see the Department’s

December 17, 1997, Decision

Memorandum Re: Ministerial Error

Allegation in the Antidumping

Administrative Review on Roller Chain,

Other than Bicycle, from Japan (95–96).

As discussed below, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.28(d), we have

determined that certain ministerial

errors were made in our margin

calculations for Enuma and Daido.

Alleged Ministerial Errors

Enuma

Issue 1: Unmatched U.S. Sales—

Computer Searching Error

Enuma states that the Department

incorrectly identified three U.S. sales as

not having a home market match within

the comparison period (i.e., the 90–60

day period). Enuma contends that the

printout of its November 15, 1996, sales

tape, which the Department used in its

final results calculations, shows home

market sales of the identical model,

during the 90–60 day period for these

three sales. Enuma requests that the

Department correct this error and to

review its program to determine if any

other currently designated unmatched

U.S. sales have matches and to revise

the dumping margins accordingly.

DOC Position: We agree with Enuma

and have corrected this ministerial

error. After review of Enuma’s margin

program, we found that we

inadvertently failed to include a step in

the product matching section of the

program. This resulted in a failure to

properly identify all home market sales

of the identical model during the 90–60

day window period. Correction of the

margin program resulted in matching

two of the three previously unmatched

U.S. sales identified by Enuma in its

November 17, 1997, clerical error

allegation and an additional unmatched

U.S. sale not identified by Enuma. The

third U.S. sale identified by Enuma

could not be matched to the home

market sale identified by Enuma

because the home market sale was a sale

to an affiliated customer which was

determined not to be at arm’s length and

was subsequently excluded from our

analysis. See Roller Chain Final FR

Notice.

Issue 2: Unmatched U.S. Sales—

Computer Input Error

In two instances, Enuma states that it

inadvertently assigned slightly different

control numbers for the same products

on its home market and U.S. sales tapes.

In the first instance, Enuma states that

an extra digit was mistakenly added to

the end of a home market control

number. In the other, Enuma states that

an extra digit was added to the end of

a U.S. control number. As a result,

Enuma argues that U.S. sales that

should have had identical home market

matches went unmatched. Enuma

requests that we revise the control

numbers for those two models so that

the control numbers on both the home

market and U.S. sales tapes are

identical.

DOC Position: Section 751(h) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),

authorizes the Department to establish

procedures for the correction of

ministerial errors in final

determinations. Section 751(h) provides

that the term ‘‘ministerial’’ error

includes errors in addition, subtraction,

or other arithmetic function, clerical

errors resulting from inaccurate

copying, duplication, or the like, and

any other type of unintentional error

which the administering authority

considers ministerial.

The Department’s implementing

regulations at 19 CFR 353.28 establish

which errors the Department considers

ministerial. A ‘‘ministerial error’’ is

defined under 19 CFR 353.28 as: an

error in addition, subtraction, or other

arithmetic function, clerical error

resulting from inaccurate copying,

duplication, or the like, and any other

type of unintentional error which the

Secretary considers ministerial.

The Department interprets the

authority granted to it by Section 751(h)

of the Act as allowing the Department

to make post-final results corrections

only for its own (‘‘ministerial’’) errors.

See Preamble of 19 CFR § 351.224

(emphasis in original). Therefore, the

Department does not believe that it may

make corrections after final results of

administrative review for errors

committed by a party to the proceeding.

Consequently, we made no revision to

Enuma’s margin calculation with regard

to Enuma’s alleged error.

Daido

Issue 1: Unmatched U.S. Sales—

Computer Searching Error

Daido states that the Department

incorrectly applied the 90–60 day

window in its attempt to match U.S. and

home market sales of identical or

similar merchandise within the

contemporaneous time period.

Specifically, Daido states that the

Department only applied the 90–60 day

rule in a forward direction (i.e., 60 days

forward), but did not search for home

market sales 90 days prior to the date of

the U.S. sale. As a result, Daido

maintains that numerous sales were

designated as unmatched U.S. sales.

DOC Position: We agree with Daido

and have corrected this ministerial

error. After review of Daido’s margin

program, we found that we

inadvertently failed to include a step in

the product matching section of the

program. This resulted in a failure to

properly search for home market sales

90 days prior to the date of the U.S. sale.

Correcting the margin program resulted

in matching previously unmatched U.S.

sales as identified by Daido in its

November 17, 1997, clerical error

allegation.

Issue 2: Unmatched U.S. Sales with

Identical Sales in the Home Market

Database

Daido states that its home market

portion of its questionnaire response

contained two matching control number

fields—one for CEP sales matching

purposes and another for EP sales

matching purposes. Daido claims that it

was necessary to report two control

number fields in the database because,

depending on the type of transaction

(i.e., CEP or EP), there were different

codes applied to identical merchandise.

Daido states that the Department

correctly matched CEP sales against

sales with an identical control number

in the home market control number

field corresponding to CEP sales.

However, Daido argues that, the

Department failed to match EP sales

with an identical control number in the

home market control number field

corresponding to EP sales. Daido claims

that this failure resulted in the

Department designating these sales as

unmatched.

DOC Position: We agree with Daido

and have corrected this ministerial

error. After review of Daido’s margin
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices 67347

program, we found that we

inadvertently failed to include a step in

the product matching section of the

program. This resulted in a failure to

properly search for identical control

numbers in both of the home market

control number fields for a given U.S.

sale. Correcting the margin program

resulted in matching previously

unmatched U.S. sales as identified by

Daido in its November 17, 1997, clerical

error allegation.

Issue 3: Unmatched U.S. Sales—

Computer Input Error by Respondent

Daido states that, in three instances, it

inadvertently assigned slightly different

control numbers for the same products

on its home market and U.S. sales tapes.

Specifically, in the first instance, Daido

states that it made home market sales of

a model identical to one sold in the

United States. However, Daido states

that although the digits in the control

number are exactly the same in the U.S.

and home market sales tapes, it

inadvertently coded the home market

model with a space in the middle. In the

second instance, Daido claims that an

extra digit was mistakenly added to the

end of a home market control number.

In the final instance, Daido maintains

that although for one model the control

number in the U.S. sales listing differs

from the control number in the home

market sales listing by one digit (i.e., the

use of a ‘‘C’’ in the home market and a

‘‘D’’ in the United States), the products

are identical. As a result of these three

errors, certain U.S. sales went

unmatched. Daido requests that we

revise the matching control numbers in

the three instances listed above so that

the control numbers on both the home

market and U.S. sales tapes are

identical.

DOC Position: The Department does

not believe that it may make corrections

after final results of administrative

review for errors committed by a party

to the proceeding. (See Enuma issue

number 2). Consequently, we made no

revision to Daido’s margin calculation

with regard to these alleged errors.

Amended Final Results

As a result of our correction of the

ministerial errors, we have determined

the following amended margins exist for

Enuma and Daido for the period April

1, 1995 through March 31, 1996:

Manufacturer/exporter Percentage*

Daido ......................................... 3.09

Enuma ....................................... 1.55

*Amended Weighted-Average Margin

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions concerning

the respondent directly to the U.S.

Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following cash

deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of these

amended final results of administrative

review, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit

rate for each reviewed company named

above will be the rate as stated above;

(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 this

review, or the original 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 this review, the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will be 15.92 percent, the All

Others rate based on the first review

conducted by the Department in which

a ‘‘new shipper’’ rate was established in

the final results of antidumping

administrative review (48 FR 51801,

November 14, 1983).

This notice serves as the 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 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

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 the APO is a

sanctionable violation.

These amended final results of

administrative review and notice are in

accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the

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

CFR 353.28(c).

Dated: December 17, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–33606 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of

Defense (Personnel and Readiness).

ACTION: Notice.

In compliance with Section 3506

(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, the office of the Under

Secretary of Defense (Personnel and

Readiness) announces the following

proposed reinstatement of a public

information collection and seeks public

comment on the provisions thereof.

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 burden of the

proposed information collection; (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 on respondents,

including through the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Consideration will be given to all

comments received by 13 February

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent to

Department of the Army, Hq DAO

ODCSPER (DAPE–PRO) ATTN: Mr.

Robbie Robinson, 4000 Defense

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–0300.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To

request more information on this

proposed information collection or to

obtain a copy of the proposal and

associated collection instruments,

please write to the above address or call

at (703) 614–4766.

Title, Associated Form, and OMB

Control Number: Repatriation

Processing Center Processing Sheet, DD

Form 2585, OMB Number 0704–0334.

Needs and Uses: This information

collection is necessary for personnel

accountability of all evacuees,