This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

27258

Vol. 63, No. 95

Monday, May 18, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–822, A–122–823]

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From

Canada: Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick

Johnson, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–3818.

Scope of This Review

The products covered by these

administrative reviews constitute two

separate ‘‘classes or kinds’’ of

merchandise: (1) Certain corrosionresistant steel and (2) certain cut-tolength plate.

The first class or kind, certain

corrosion-resistant steel, includes flatrolled carbon steel products of

rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or

coated with corrosion-resistant metals

such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-,

aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys,

whether or not corrugated or painted,

varnished or coated with plastics or

other nonmetallic substances in

addition to the metallic coating, in coils

(whether or not in successively

superimposed layers) and of a width of

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater and which measures at least

10 times the thickness or if of a

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more

are of a width which exceeds 150

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

under item numbers 7210.31.0000,

7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000,

7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090,

7210.60.0000, 7210.70.6030,

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090,

7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000,

7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000,

7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030,

7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000,

7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000,

7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,

7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000,

7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000,

7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000,

7217.19.5000, 7217.22.5000,

7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000,

7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000,

7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and

7217.39.5000. Included are flat-rolled

products of non-rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is

achieved subsequent to the rolling

process (i.e., products which have been

worked after rolling)—for example,

products which have been beveled or

rounded at the edges. Excluded are flatrolled steel products either plated or

coated with tin, lead, chromium,

chromium oxides, both tin and lead

(‘‘terne plate’’), or both chromium and

chromium oxides (‘‘tin-free steel’’),

whether or not painted, varnished or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances in addition to

the metallic coating. Also excluded are

clad products in straight lengths of

0.1875 inch or more in composite

thickness and of a width which exceeds

150 millimeters and measures at least

twice the thickness. Also excluded are

certain clad stainless flat-rolled

products, which are three-layered

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flatrolled products less than 4.75

millimeters in composite thickness that

consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled

product clad on both sides with

stainless steel in a 20%–60%–20%

ratio. These HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

The second class or kind, certain cutto-length plate, includes hot-rolled

carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e.,

flat-rolled products rolled on four faces

or in a closed box pass, of a width

exceeding 150 millimeters but not

exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters,

not in coils and without patterns in

relief), of rectangular shape, neither

clad, plated nor coated with metal,

whether or not painted, varnished, or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances; and certain hotrolled carbon steel flat-rolled products

in straight lengths, of rectangular shape,

hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor

coated with metal, whether or not

painted, varnished, or coated with

plastics or other nonmetallic substances,

4.75 millimeters or more in thickness

and of a width which exceeds 150

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the HTS under item numbers

7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000,

7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000,

7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000,

7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000,

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000,

7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000,

7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045,

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000.

Included are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such

cross-section is achieved subsequent to

the rolling process (i.e., products which

have been worked after rolling) —for

example, products which have been

beveled or rounded at the edges.

Excluded is grade X–70 plate. These

HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

The period of review (POR) is August

1, 1995, through July 31, 1996.

Amendment of Final Results

On March 16, 1998, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

published the final results of

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on certain

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products and certain cut-to-length

carbon steel plate from Canada (63 FR

12725) (‘‘Final Results’’). These reviews

cover five manufacturers/exporters of

the subject merchandise to the United

States during the period August 1, 1995,

through July 31, 1996. We received

comments on the final results from

Algoma, Inc. (‘‘Algoma’’), Stelco Inc.

(‘‘Stelco’’), and from the petitioners.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Notices 27259

Interested Party Comments

Algoma

Comment 1: Algoma alleges that the

Department made a ministerial error in

its adjustment of certain U.S.

commission amounts. Specifically,

Algoma contends that the Department

should not have applied a ‘‘facts

available’’ methodology for certain U.S.

commissions calculated on a semiannual basis for several reasons. First,

Algoma argues that this methodology

was accepted in prior segments of this

proceeding. Second, Algoma argues that

it received no opportunity from the

Department to clarify the record or

change its existing reporting

methodology.

Petitioners did not comment on this

issue.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Algoma that the Department made

a ministerial error in its calculation of

certain U.S. commission amounts. The

purpose of this amended final is solely

to correct ministerial errors, and not to

re-consider other decisions. A

ministerial error is defined in 19 C.F.R.

section 353.28(d) 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.’’

(Designated in the Department’s new

regulations as 19 C.F.R. 351.224(f).) As

the Department noted in Comment 4 of

the Final Results notice, while ‘‘it was

appropriate for Algoma to report

commissions on a customer-specific

basis over a period of time....(however),

it is also clear that commissions were

paid by Algoma based on monthly

shipments, and not semi-annually.

Therefore, Algoma should have reported

its U.S. commissions on a monthly basis

instead of a semi-annual basis.’’ See

Final Results at 12728. Algoma does not

dispute the mathematical application of

the Department’s decision but instead

has expressed its disagreement with the

Department’s decision in this instance.

Therefore, we reject Algoma’s allegation

because it does not address an alleged

error which is ministerial in nature.

Stelco

Comment 2: In a letter to the

Department dated March 27, 1998,

Stelco alleges that the Department failed

to apply the Baycoat, Z-Line, and iron

ore supplier adjustment to home market

VCOMs (variable cost of manufacture)

in its model-match computer program

for corrosion-resistant steel. Stelco

argues that based on the Department’s

statement in the footnote of the final

analysis memorandum (See Stelco Final

Results Analysis Memorandum for

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products at

page 3), the Department clearly

intended to apply these supplier

adjustments to TCOM and VCOM.

Petitioners did not comment on this

issue.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Stelco. The Department erroneously

compared adjusted U.S. VCOMS to

unadjusted home market VCOMS. To

ensure accurate product comparisons,

we have recalculated VCOMH in the

model match program for corrosionresistant steel so that adjusted figures

are used on both sides of the

comparison. See Analysis of Alleged

Ministerial Errors for CorrosionResistant Products at page 1.

Comment 3: Stelco argues that in its

final margin calculation program for

corrosion-resistant products, the

Department incorrectly calculated

GNACV and INTEXCV using the

variable TOTCOM rather than the

revised variable TCOM in its computer

programs for corrosion-resistant steel.

Petitioners allege that the Department

inadvertently used the variable

TOTCOM in its model match program

for plate rather than the correct term

TCOM.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Stelco and petitioners. We have

corrected the final margin program for

corrosion-resistant steel to calculate

GNACV and INTEXCV using the revised

variable TCOM. See Id. at page 2.

Additionally, we have corrected the

model match program for plate to use

the variable TCOM. See Analysis of

Alleged Ministerial Errors for Plate at

page 2.

Comment 4: Stelco alleges that, for

corrosion-resistant steel, the Department

applied cost adjustments intended for

only those orders processed by Baycoat

to orders which had not been serviced

by Baycoat. Stelco argues that the

computer programming language used

by the Department to apply these

Baycoat adjustments to unpainted, code

4 control numbers resulted in nonBaycoat serviced merchandise being

incorrectly adjusted for Baycoat

services.

Petitioners did not comment on this

issue.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Stelco. The Department erroneously

applied the Baycoat adjustment to sales

of class 4 merchandise that were not

serviced by Baycoat. The Department

has amended the programming language

in its model match and margin

calculation programs for corrosionresistant steel to remedy this error. See

Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors

for Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products at

page 2.

Comment 5: Stelco alleges that for

corrosion-resistant steel the Department

inappropriately recalculated the credit

expense for all U.S. sales using a U.S.

short-term borrowing rate though the

Canadian dollar was the currency of

certain U.S. sales. Similarly, Stelco

alleges that the Department overlooked

the fact that certain home market sales

were incurred in U.S. dollars. Stelco

argues that the Department should

recalculate the credit expense for those

home market sales for which the

currency of the transaction was U.S.

dollars using the U.S. short-term

borrowing rate.

Petitioners did not comment on this

issue.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Stelco. The Department’s policy bulletin

98.2 states that the short term interest

rate should be tied to the currency in

which the sales are denominated. We

have inserted language into the final

programs for corrosion-resistant steel

which ties the short-term interest rate to

the currency in which the sale is

denominated. See Analysis of Alleged

Ministerial Errors for CorrosionResistant Steel Products at pages 3 and

4.

Comment 6: Stelco argues that the

Department’s use of the date of the final

results as the pay date for those U.S.

sales that had not yet been paid by the

time of Stelco’s submission was a

ministerial error. Stelco maintains that

it is generally the Department’s policy to

substitute the date of the last

submission or the date on which the

respondent had an opportunity to

provide updated information as the pay

date.

Petitioners argue that the

Department’s use of the date of the final

results as the surrogate pay date does

not constitute a ministerial error. Citing

to the Department’s final analysis

memorandum, petitioners note that the

Department stated that it ‘‘used the date

of the final determination of March 9,

1998 as the pay date’’ for those sales for

which Stelco had not yet been paid. See

Stelco Final Results Analysis

Memorandum for Corrosion-Resistant

Steel Products at page 16. Petitioners

argue that the Department must reject

Stelco’s allegation of ministerial error as

the Department clearly intended to use

the date of the final results in its credit

calculation.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioners. The error Stelco alleges does

not meet the Department’s criteria of a

ministerial error within the meaning of

19 C.F.R. section 353.28(d) as cited in

the recommendation to Comment 1
27260 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Notices

above. Stelco does not dispute the

mathematical application of the

Department’s decision but instead has

expressed its disagreement with the

Department’s decision in this instance.

The Department explicitly intended to

use the date of the final results in its

credit calculation. Therefore, we reject

Stelco’s allegation of ministerial error.

Comment 7: Petitioners allege that the

Department inadvertently used an

incorrect dataset for the concordance

data in the margin calculation program

for plate. The model match program

creates a concordance dataset named

CONCORD; however, the margin

calculation program uses the term

CONCORDP. Petitioners argue that the

Department should use the dataset name

CONCORD in its margin calculation

program.

Stelco did not comment on this issue.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioners. Because this error is

typographical in nature, it falls within

the Department’s definition of

ministerial error. We have corrected the

margin calculation program for plate to

use the proper concordance dataset. See

Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors

for Plate at page 2.

Comment 8: Petitioners allege that the

Department failed to exclude general

sales tax (‘‘GST’’) and provincial sales

tax (‘‘PST’’) from home market credit

expenses in its final programs for both

corrosion-resistant steel and plate. They

note that the Department stated in its

Final Results notice that it ‘‘corrected

Stelco’s home market credit expenses to

exclude both GST and PST’’ (see Final

Results at 12742).

Stelco did not comment on this issue.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioners. We have amended the final

programs for both corrosion-resistant

steel and plate to exclude GST and PST

from the calculation of home market

credit expenses. See Analysis of Alleged

Ministerial Errors for CorrosionResistant Steel Products at pages 3 and

4. See also Analysis of Alleged

Ministerial Errors for Plate at page 3.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we have

determined that the following margins

exist:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)

Corrosion—Resistant

Steel:

Dofasco ...................... 0.72.

CCC ........................... 0.54.

Stelco ......................... 1.55.

Cut-to-Length Plate:

Algoma ....................... 0.44 (de minimis).

MRM .......................... 0.00.

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)

Stelco ......................... 0.35 (de minimis).

Pursuant to section 353.28 of the

Department’s regulations, parties to the

proceeding will have five days after the

date of publication of this notice to

notify the Department of any new

ministerial or clerical errors, as well as

five days thereafter to rebut any

comments by parties.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

sales to the United States and normal

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 the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) the cash

deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be the rates for those

firms as stated above, except if the rate

is less than .5 percent and therefore de

minimis, the cash deposit will be zero;

(2) for previously reviewed or

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 less-than-fairvalue (‘‘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 will be the ‘‘all others’’ rate made

effective by the final results of the 1993–

1994 administrative review of these

orders (see Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain

Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from Canada;

Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 13815

(March 28, 1996)). These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

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 amendment of final results of

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: May 11, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–13138 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–401–805]

Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate From Sweden

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended final results of

administrative review.

SUMMARY: On January 13, 1998, the

United States Court of International

Trade affirmed the Department of

Commerce’s final remand results

affecting the final assessment rate for

the 1993/94 administrative review in

the case of certain cut-to-length carbon

steel plate from Sweden. SSAB Svenkst

Stal AB v. United States, Slip Op. 98–

3 (CIT January 13, 1998). As there is

now a final and conclusive court

decision in this action, we are amending

our final results of review, and we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate entries subject to this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carrie Blozy or Stephen Jacques, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–0374 or 482–1391,

respectively.

Applicable Statue

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Tariff Act’’), are

references to the provisions in effect as

of December 31, 1994. In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations