2362 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 1998 / Notices

Thursday, February 5, 1998, at the

Westborough State Hospital, Lincoln

Room, P.O. Box 288, Lyman Street,

Westborough, Massachusetts 01581. The

purpose of the meeting is to plan for the

statewide civil rights conference

scheduled for March 1998.

Persons desiring additional

information, or planning a presentation

to the Committee, should contact

Committee Chairperson Fletcher

Blanchard, 413–585–3909, or Ki-Taek

Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional

Office, 202–376–7533 (TDD 202–376–

8116). 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, January 8, 1998.

Carol-Lee Hurley,

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 98–1065 Filed 1–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–820]

Ferrosilicon 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: On November 22, 1996, the

Department of Commerce published the

final results of the first administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on ferrosilicon from Brazil. The review

covered Companhia de Ferro Ligas da

Bahia, a manufacturer/exporter of the

subject merchandise to the United

States. The period of review is August

15, 1993 through February 28, 1995. The

respondent and the petitioners filed

ministerial error comments with regard

to these final results of review on

November 25, and November 26, 1996,

respectively. Subsequently, both parties

filed suit with the Court of International

Trade regarding these final results of

review. On August 18, 1997, the Court

on International Trade consolidated the

court cases and gave leave to the

Department of Commerce to consider

certain alleged ministerial errors, and

where appropriate, make corrections.

Based on the correction of certain

ministerial errors made in the final

results of review, we are amending our

final results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cameron Werker or Wendy J. Frankel,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–3874 or (202) 482–

5849, 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

Tariff Act). Unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Tariff Act are

references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department’s regulations

are to the regulations as codified at 19

CFR 353 (April 1, 1997).

Background

On November 22, 1996, the

Department published the final results

of the first administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on ferrosilicon

from Brazil (61 FR 59407), covering the

period August 15, 1993 through

February 28, 1995. The respondent is

Companhia de Ferro Ligas da Bahia

(Ferbasa). The petitioners are Aimcor

and SKW Metals & Alloys Inc.

On November 25, and November 26,

1996, respectively, Ferbasa and the

petitioners filed allegations that the

Department made certain ministerial

errors in the final results of

administrative review. Subsequently,

both parties filed suit with the Court of

International Trade (CIT) regarding the

final results of review. On August 18,

1997, the CIT consolidated the court

cases and gave leave to the Department

to consider certain alleged ministerial

errors, and where appropriate, make

corrections.

As discussed below, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.28(d), we have

determined that the issues raised in the

order from the CIT are ministerial

errors. On December 17, 1997, the

Department released draft amended

final results of review to Ferbasa and to

petitioners. On January 7, 1998, Ferbasa

submitted comments regarding the draft

final results of review. The petitioners

did not submit comments.

Alleged Ministerial Errors

Issue 1: Ferbasa argues that the

Department erroneously added to

constructed value (CV) an amount

calculated for ICMS and IPI taxes

related to home market sales prices

rather than materials costs.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Ferbasa. In our calculation of CV for the

final results of review, we inadvertently

used the tax amounts reported for home

market sales. For these amended final

results we have used the amounts

provided by Ferbasa in Exhibit D–16 of

its March 27, 1996, supplemental

submission, which reflect the amount of

ICMS and IPI taxes incurred for material

inputs used in the production of

ferrosilicon.

Issue 2: Ferbasa asserts that in

calculating it’s home market indirect

selling expenses, the Department

erroneously used the originally reported

indirect selling expense figures rather

than the corrected values reported in

Exhibit D–20 of it’s March 27, 1996,

supplemental submission.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Ferbasa that we inadvertently used the

incorrect indirect selling expenses

provided in Ferbasa’s original

submission. For these amended final

results, we have used the corrected

values reported by Ferbasa in Exhibit D–

20 of its March 27, 1996, supplemental

submission.

Issue 3: The petitioners argue that for

the final results of review, the

Department failed to express the final

dumping margin as a percentage in the

computer calculations, thereby

understating the margin by a factor of

100.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the petitioner. For these amended final

results, we have formatted the

calculation spreadsheet to express the

margin as a percentage.

Issue 4: The petitioners state that in

calculating CV, the Department used

only the cost of production (COP) values

for December 1994, and therefore,

normal value, which was based on CV,

was not based on a six-month weighted

average CV as discussed in the

Department’s final results of review

Federal Register notice.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the petitioners that in our calculation of

normal value, we inadvertently failed to

weight average the six months of costs

for the subject merchandise. We

corrected this error for the amended

final results of review.

Issue 5: The petitioners allege that

when converting normal value from
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 1998 / Notices 2363

reais to U.S. dollars, the Department

incorrectly divided the reais amount by

the exchange rate.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the petitioners. The exchange rate that

the Department used was 1.182033 U.S.

dollars = 1 real. Therefore, when

converting reais to U.S. dollars, we

should have multiplied the reais

amount by 1.182033. We have corrected

this calculation for these amended final

results of review.

Issue 6: The petitioners allege that the

Department made the same conversion

error, noted in Issue 5 above, with

regard to U.S. packing expenses.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the petitioners and have corrected this

error for these amended final results of

review.

Issue 7: The petitioners contend that

in calculating adjustments to CV the

Department subtracted home market

packing expenses from a CV that did not

include those expenses.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the petitioners, and have eliminated this

adjustment from the weighted-average

margin calculation for these amended

final results of review.

Issue 8: The petitioners note that

although the Department’s final results

of review analysis memorandum states

that the Department calculated the ratio

of net profit to cost of goods sold based

on information from Ferbasa’s financial

statements, it appears that the

Department actually calculated a ratio of

net profit to net sales value, thereby

understating the profit ratio.

Ferbasa contends that in the draft

amended final results of review, the

Department calculated the profit ratio

using profit and cost of manufacturing

rather than profit and cost of goods sold.

Ferbasa further contends that the

Department should apply the profit rate

to a pre-profit CV that does not include

amounts for ICMS and IPI taxes since

the profit ratio is calculated based on a

cost of goods sold amount that is net of

the ICMS and IPI taxes.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the petitioners that in our final results

of review we inadvertently calculated a

ratio of profit to net sales value. We also

agree with Ferbasa that for the draft

amended final results of review, we

inadvertently used the cost of

manufacturing rather than the cost of

goods sold in our profit rate calculation.

For these amended final results, we

have corrected the profit calculation to

reflect a ratio of net profit to cost of

goods sold. However, there is no

information on the record to

substantiate Ferbasa’s claim that the

cost of goods sold figure is calculated

net of ICMS and IPI taxes. Therefore, we

are not changing the pre-profit CV in

our calculations to exclude these taxes.

Issue 9: The petitioners argue that the

Department’s final results of review

analysis memorandum states that the

Department applied an 18 percent facts

available (FA) rate for ICMS taxes

incurred by Ferbasa on electricity costs.

Petitioners note, however, that in the

calculations, the Department applied as

FA for ICMS taxes on electricity an

actual figure that was less than 18

percent of Ferbasa’s electricity cost.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the petitioners and have corrected this

error for these amended final results of

review.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our correction of the

ministerial errors, we have determined

that the amended weighted-average

margin for Ferbasa for the period August

15, 1993 through February 28, 1995 is

30.69 percent.

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 final

amended results of administrative

review, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The amended

cash deposit rate for the 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 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 this review, the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will be 35.95 percent, the All

Others rate established in the amended

final LTFV investigation. These

amended deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

Assessment Rates

For assessment purposes, we

calculated an importer-specific

assessment rate. For the export price

(EP) sale, we divided the total dumping

margin (calculated as the difference

between normal value and EP) by the

total entered value of the merchandise.

Upon completion of this review, we will

direct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess the resulting ad valorem rate

against the entered value of each entry

of the subject merchandise by the

importer during the period of review.

This notice also 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) and

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

and (h) and 19 CFR 353.28.

Dated: January 12, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–1158 Filed 1–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 010998B]

Western Pacific Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery

Council will hold public meetings

(including hearings) in Hawaii on the

islands of Maui, Oahu, and Kauai to