Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 1998 / Notices 2361

This was one of five potential pilots

being considered. GIPSA received 41

comments. Seven specifically talked

about the pilot programs for barges. Of

those seven, five supported the program

for barges, and two did not.

Subsequently, GIPSA determined that

this proposed pilot program was too

narrow in scope for the initial round of

pilot programs.

Subsequently, some official agencies

expressed their belief that a pilot

program on the Mississippi River would

be beneficial because there is some

uncertainty over the boundary lines

between official agencies along the

Mississippi River. At one point GIPSA

considered the boundary to be the

middle of a river. Official agencies

found this very difficult to work with,

and GIPSA subsequently changed the

boundary definition to the edge of a

river. The middle of a river was viewed

as an open area to be served by either

contiguous official agency.

In 1993, because of flooding along the

Mississippi River, GIPSA granted a

temporary exception for certain types of

barge inspections along portions of the

Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri

Rivers. This exception made the covered

river areas open to any official agency

for probe sampling and inspections to

expedite barge traffic. GIPSA noted no

problems resulting from this exception.

In addition, some facilities located

along the Mississippi River (Birds Point

Terminal, Bertrand, Missouri; Peavey

Company, St. Louis, Missouri; ADM,

Winona, Minnesota; and Consolidated

Grain, Caruthersville, Missouri) have

received services from alternative

official agencies under the existing pilot

programs. There have been no

significant problems resulting from the

barge inspections on the Mississippi

River under the existing pilot programs.

GIPSA announced and invited

comments on the following four

possible pilot programs in the October

10, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR

52967).

1. Barges on the Mississippi River

may be sampled by probe by any official

agency; or

2. Barges on the Mississippi River

may be sampled by probe at any

location by the official agency

designated to serve the geographic area

within which the barge was loaded; or

3. Barges on all rivers may be sampled

by probe by any official agency; or

4. Barges on all rivers may be sampled

by probe at any location by the official

agency designated to serve the

geographic area within which the barge

was loaded.

Comments were due by November 15,

1997. GIPSA received seven comments:

five from official agencies (two private

and three States) and two from trade

organizations. Four official agencies

supported option 4 and one supported

option 2. Both options 2 and 4 would

limit the pilot program to the official

agency serving the area within which

the barge was loaded. Option 2 is

further limited to the Mississippi River

while option 4 covers all rivers

nationwide. The official agencies cited

their belief that options 2 and 4 would

provide more flexibility to the grain

industry, and their concern that options

1 and 3 would weaken the official

system. Allowing unrestricted access to

grain barges would cause their fixed

cost to rise as high inspection volume

customers are lost and they are left with

the responsibility of providing service to

infrequent users of official services.

This, they believe, would encourage

official agencies to focus on serving high

volume customers and encourage

customers to look for better grades.

Official agencies would tend to become

national, contract with one large

customer, and lose integrity and

impartiality.

One of the three State official agencies

did not favor projects opening up

agency geographic areas while the other

two State official agencies supported

option 2 and 4 respectively. The State

official agencies noted other concerns

including their limitations on travel,

inability to add or decrease staff

quickly, and their stronger neutrality

and integrity base on non-profit status

compared to most private official

agencies.

GIPSA recognizes these concerns, but

believes that there are adequate

safeguards in the proposed pilot

programs.

Two national grain trade

organizations supported option 3.

Option 3 would allow barges,

nationwide, to be probe-sampled by any

official agency no matter where it is

located or where it was loaded. These

two organizations cited their belief that

option 3 would provide grain handlers

another option for obtaining timely

official inspection services when the

official agency serving them is busy. It

would, they believe, provide better

access to service, and foster official

agency emphasis on quality and

efficiency. They also believed that

market driven-competition can

effectively and efficiently address many

of the factors that discourage use of the

domestic official inspection system.

They believe the other proposed pilot

programs would be too limited in scope.

After consideration of all relevant

information, GIPSA is announcing that

effective March 1, 1998, and ending

October 31, 1999, concurrently with the

two existing pilot programs, barges on

all rivers may be sampled by probe by

any official agency. During this time,

GIPSA will monitor all pilot programs.

Anytime, GIPSA determines that a pilot

program is having a negative impact on

the official system or is not working as

intended, the pilot program may be

modified or discontinued. If GIPSA

determines that a customer violates the

provisions of this pilot program, such

customer will no longer be permitted to

participate in the program.

Official agencies participating in this

pilot program must notify GIPSA’s

Compliance Division at 202–720–8525

or FAX 202–690–2755 any time they

sample a barge outside their assigned

geographic area.

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

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

Dated: January 9, 1998.

Neil E. Porter,

Director, Compliance Division.

[FR Doc. 98–921 Filed 1–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P

ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW

BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE: January 22, 1998.

PLACE: ARRB, 600 E Street, NW.,

Washington, DC.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Review and Accept Minutes of

Closed Meetings.

2. Review of Assassination Records.

3. Other Business.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Eileen Sullivan, Press Officer, 600 E

Street, NW; Second Floor, Washington,

DC 20530. Telephone: (202) 724–0088;

Fax: (202) 724–0457.

T. Jeremy Gunn,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 98–1086 Filed 1–12–98; 4:21 pm]

BILLING CODE 6118–01–P

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting

of the Massachusetts Advisory

Committee

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to

the provisions of the rules and

regulations of the U.S. Commission on

Civil Rights, that a meeting of the

Massachusetts Advisory Committee to

the Commission will convene at 10:30

a.m and adjourn at 3:00 p.m. on
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