Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices 24527

Dated: April 28, 1998.

Christopher E. Goldthwait,

Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural

Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11698 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Foreign Agricultural Service

Notice of Agricultural Policy Advisory

Committee for Trade and Agricultural

Technical Advisory Committees for

Trade Meetings

AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Policy

Advisory Committee for Trade (APAC)

and the Agricultural Technical Advisory

Committees for Trade (ATACs) will

hold meetings during the period of May

1, 1998–December 20, 1998. The

meetings will include a review and

discussion of current issues which

influence U.S. agricultural trade policy

that include, but are not limited to,

issues concerning GATT accession

negotiations with various countries;

U.S./Mexico bilateral agricultural trade

issues; U.S./Canada bilateral

agricultural trade issues; international

sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to

trade; and WTO Uruguay Round

Agreement implementation issues.

Pursuant to section 2155(f)(2) of title

19 of the United States Code, the U.S.

Trade Representative has determined

that these meetings will be concerned

solely with matters the disclosure of

which would seriously compromise the

development by the United States

Government of trade policy priorities,

negotiating objectives, bargaining

positions. Accordingly, these meetings

will be closed to the public.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 14th

and Independence Avenues, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20250 unless an

alternate site is necessary.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pate Felts, Director of Intergovernmental

Affairs, Office of the United States

Trade Representative at (202) 395–6120

or Paula Thomasson, Joint Executive

Secretary, Agricultural Policy Advisory

Committee for Trade, Foreign

Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, at (202) 720–6829.

Dated: April 28, 1998.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11789 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

Designation for the Champaign (IL),

Eastern Iowa (IA), and Enid (OK) Areas

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: GIPSA announces the

designation of Champaign-Danville

Grain Inspection Departments, Inc.

(Champaign), Eastern-Iowa Grain

Inspection and Weighing Service, Inc.

(Eastern Iowa), and Enid Grain

Inspection Company, Inc. (Enid), to

provide official services under the

United States Grain Standards Act, as

amended (Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: USDA, GIPSA, Janet M.

Hart, Chief, Review Branch, Compliance

Division, STOP 3604, Room 1647–S,

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20250–3604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janet M. Hart, at 202–720–8525.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

action has been reviewed and

determined not to be a rule or regulation

as defined in Executive Order 12866

and Departmental Regulation 1512–1;

therefore, the Executive Order and

Departmental Regulation do not apply

to this action.

In the December 1, 1997, Federal

Register (62 FR 63513), GIPSA asked

persons interested in providing official

services in the geographic areas

assigned to Champaign and Enid to

submit an application for designation.

Applications were due by December 30

1997. Champaign and Enid, the only

applicants, each applied for designation

to provide official services in the entire

area currently assigned to them.

In the December 17, 1997, Federal

Register (62 FR 66051), GIPSA asked

persons interested in providing official

services in the geographic area assigned

to Eastern Iowa to submit an application

for designation. Applications were due

by January 15 1998. Eastern Iowa, the

only applicant, applied for designation

to provide official services in the entire

area currently assigned to them.

Since Champaign, Eastern Iowa, and

Enid were the only applicants, GIPSA

did not ask for comments on them.

GIPSA evaluated all available

information regarding the designation

criteria in Section 7(f)(l)(A) of the Act

and, according to Section 7(f)(l)(B),

determined that Champaign, Eastern

Iowa, and Enid are able to provide

official services in the geographic areas

for which they applied. Effective June 1,

1998, and ending May 31, 2001,

Champaign is designated to provide

official services in the geographic area

specified in the December 1, 1997,

Federal Register. Effective August 1,

1998, and ending May 31, 2001, Eastern

Iowa is designated to provide official

services in the geographic area specified

in the December 17, 1997, Federal

Register. Effective July 1, 1998, and

ending May 31, 2001, Enid is designated

to provide official services in the

geographic area specified in the

December 1, 1997, Federal Register.

Interested persons may obtain official

services by contacting Champaign at

217–398–0723, Eastern Iowa at 319–

322–7149, and Enid at 405–233–1121.

Authority: Pub. L. 94–582, 90 Stat. 2867,

as amended (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.).

Dated: April 27, 1998.

Neil E. Porter,

Director, Compliance Division.

[FR Doc. 98–11694 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resource Conservation

Service

Notice of Proposed Change to the

Natural Resources Conservation

Service’s National Handbook of

Conservation Practices

AGENCY: Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S.

Department of Agriculture, New York

State Office.

ACTION: Notice of availability of

proposed changes in the NRCS National

Handbook of Conservation Practices,

Section IV of the New York State NRCS

Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) for

review and comment.

SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS to

issue a series of new conservation

practice standards in its National

Handbook of Conservation Practices.

These new standards include;

Agrichemical Mixing Facility (NY702)

and Record Keeping (NY748).

DATES: Comments will be received on or

before June 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Inquire in writing to Richard D.

Swenson, State Conservationist, Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),

441 S. Salina Street, Fifth Floor, Suite

354, Syracuse, New York, 13202–2450.

Copies of these standards are available

by request from the above individual.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

343 of the Federal Agricultural
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