24528 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

states that revisions made after the

enactment of the law to NRCS State

Technical Guides used to carry out

highly erodible land and wetland

provisions of the law shall be made

available for public review and

comment. For the next 30 days the

NRCS will receive comments relative to

the proposed changes. Following that

period a determination will be made by

the NRCS regarding disposition of those

comments and a final determination of

change will be made.

Dated: April 24, 1998.

Steven L. Machovec,

Acting State Conservationist, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, Syracuse,

NY.

[FR Doc. 98–11593 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–16–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–802]

Gray Portland Cement and Clinker

From Mexico: Amended Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nithya Nagarajan, Kristen Stevens, or

John Totaro, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue N.W,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930

(hereinafter, ‘‘the Act’’) by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department’s regulations

are to the old regulations (19 CFR part

353 (1997)).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include gray portland cement and

clinker. Gray portland cement is a

hydraulic cement and the primary

component of concrete. Clinker, an

intermediate material product produced

when manufacturing cement, has no use

other than being ground into finished

cement. Gray portland cement is

currently classifiable under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

number 2523.29 and cement clinker is

currently classifiable under HTS item

number 2523.10. Gray portland cement

has also been entered under HTS item

number 2523.90 as ‘‘other hydraulic

cements.’’ The HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs Service purposes only. Our

written description of the scope of the

order remains dispositive.

Amendment of Final Results

On March 16, 1998, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

the final results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on Gray Portland Cement and Clinker

from Mexico (63 FR 12764 ). This

review covered CEMEX S.A de C.V

(CEMEX), and its affiliate, Cementos de

Chihuahua (CDC), manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States. The period of review

(POR) is August 1, 1995 through July 31,

1996.

On March 24, 1998, counsel for

petitioner, the Southern Tier Cement

Producers Committee, filed allegations

of clerical errors with regard to the final

results in the sixth administrative

review of the antidumping duty order of

gray portland cement and clinker from

Mexico. On April 3, 1997, counsel for

the respondent, CEMEX, also filed

allegations of clerical errors with regard

to this review. Petitioner then filed

rebuttal comments on April 10, 1998.

The Department, upon review of the

allegations, agrees that certain aspects of

the final results constitute ministerial

errors within the meaning of 19 CFR

353.28, and is hereby issuing an

amended final based on corrections for

these ministerial errors.

First, CEMEX and petitioner noted

that the margin program contained an

incorrect instruction which resulted in

an incorrect calculation of home market

credit and inventory carrying cost. The

Department, upon review of the margin

program determined that the original

final margin program failed to perform

the proper mathematical calculation in

calculating home market credit and

inventory carrying cost, and U.S. credit

and inventory carrying cost. The

Department has corrected the amended

final margin program to reflect these

changes. For a complete discussion of

the Department’s corrected margin

program, please see the amended final

results analysis memo from the case

analyst to the file.

Second, CEMEX contends that the

Department used an incorrect factor to

convert quantities from short tons to

metric tons in the margin calculation

program. CEMEX did not raise this

alleged error in its case brief for the

sixth review. The petitioner argues that

the Department used this conversion

factor in the fifth review amended final

results, the sixth review preliminary

results, and the sixth review final

results. We agree with petitioner,

moreover, CEMEX did not object to the

explicit statement in the Federal

Register notice of the fifth review

amended final results that the

Department used the conversion factor

CEMEX now contests—.907194 metric

tons per short ton—in the amended final

results. The Department’s short ton/

metric ton conversion factor (1

MT=1.1023 ST; 1/1.1023=0.907194)

varies by 0.000009 from the factor

proposed by CEMEX as the

‘‘numerically correct’’ factor (1 ST=2000

Lbs.; 1 MT=2,204.623 Lbs.; 2000/

2,204.623=0.907185). Clearly, the

Department’s conversion factor is also

‘‘numerically correct,’’ but reflects a

different calculation methodology from

that proposed by CEMEX. Thus, the

Department did not err by using this

factor, and we will not depart from

established practice by adopting

CEMEX’s conversion factor for the sixth

review amended final results.

Third, CEMEX alleges that the

Department used incorrect inflation

factors for the months of December 1995

and January 1996 in its calculation of

the difference in merchandise (DIFMER)

adjustment. Petitioner did not object to

the corrected inflation factor, but noted

that the Department failed to use the

appropriate costs, as revised after

verification, in the DIFMER adjustment

calculation. Upon review of the margin

program, the Department determined

that CEMEX and petitioner are both

correct, therefore, we have revised the

inflation factors for the months of

December 1995 and January 1996,

revised the cost of production to reflect

the costs as reported to us after

verification, and recalculated DIFMER

for both CEMEX and its collapsed

affiliate, CDC. For a complete discussion

of the Department’s corrected margin

program, please see the amended final

results analysis memo from the case

analyst to the file.

Finally, petitioner alleges that the

Department failed to issue a final duty

absorption finding in the Federal

Register notice for the final results of

review. CEMEX did not rebut

petitioner’s allegation. Upon review of

the final results, the Department has

determined that its position has not

altered from the preliminary results of

review and has determined that the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices 24529

parties to the proceeding did not

comment on the Department’s

preliminary finding. Therefore,

consistent with our prior practice, the

Department will continue to adhere to

its preliminary finding for the final

results of review. However, due to the

fact that the final weighted-average

dumping margin was revised between

the preliminary and final results, we

have finally determined that CEMEX

has margins on 92.49 percent of its U.S.

sales.

Pursuant to section 353.28 of the

Department’s regulations, parties to the

proceeding will have 5 days after the

date of publication of this notice to

notify the Department of other

ministerial or clerical errors, as well as,

5 days thereafter to rebut any comments

by parties.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we have

determined that the following margins

exist:

Manufacturer/Exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

CEMEX S.A de C.V ............................................................................................................................................... 8/1/95–7/31/96 37.49

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

United States price and foreign market

value may vary from the percentages

stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective, upon

publication of this notice of amended

final results of review for all shipments

of gray portland cement and clinker

from Mexico, 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 will be the rates for those

firms as stated above; (2) for previously

investigated 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 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) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 61.85

percent for gray portland cement and

clinker, the all others rate established in

the LTFV investigations. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Gray Portland Cement and

Clinker from Mexico, 55 FR 29244,

(1990).

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

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.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

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

CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 21, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–11429 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–508–605]

Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel;

Extension of Time Limit for

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit

for countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is extending the time limit for the

preliminary results of the administrative

review of the countervailing duty order

on industrial phosphoric acid from

Israel, covering the period January 1,

1996 through December 31, 1996. This

extension is made pursuant to section

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

amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dana Mermelstein or Maria MacKay,

Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–2786.

POSTPONEMENT: Under the Act, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) may extend the deadline

for issuance of the preliminary results of

review if it determines that it is not

practicable to issue the preliminary

results within the statutory time limit of

245 days after the last day of the month

in which the anniversary of the date of

the publication of the order occurs. The

Department finds that it is not

practicable to issue the preliminary

results for the calendar year 1996

administrative review of industrial

phosphoric acid from Israel within this

time limit. (See Memorandum from the

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, dated April 27,

1998, to the Acting Assistant Secretary

for Import Administration, ‘‘Industrial

Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Extension

of the Deadline for the Preliminary

Results of the 1996 Administrative

Review (January 1, 1996 through

December 31, 1996’’), which is a public

document on file in the Central Records

Unit.)

In accordance with section

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

amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act, the Department will

extend the time for issuance of the

preliminary results of this review from

May 4, 1998 to no later than August 31,

1998.