35200 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices

6 We note that, in the preliminary results, we

erroneously indicated that if the assessment rates

that we calculated for the final results were de

minimis, we would not instruct Customs to assess

duties. However, section 353.6 (b) of our regulations

requires the assessment of duties for any importerspecific assessment rates greater than zero.

Accordingly, we have not disregarded de minimis

rates for assessment purposes.

the COS adjustment. The petitioners

assert that the various interest rates

charged to Borusan during the POR vary

widely, and suggest that, due to the high

inflation in Turkey, it would be unfair

to calculate interest expense on an

average basis. Further, the petitioners

add, it is the Department’s practice to

calculate costs on a monthly basis,

citing Pipe and Tube from Mexico at

37016.

The petitioners argue in the

alternative that, if the Department does

make the COS adjustment requested by

Borusan, imputed home market credit

expenses must be based on a proper

calculation of Borusan’s net prices.

Specifically, the petitioners argue,

Borusan’s calculation of net price does

not include a deduction for the quantity

rebate granted to certain customers by

Borusan, thereby overstating the net

price to which the credit expense is

applied.

DOC Position: Pursuant to section

773(a)(8) of the Act, a COS adjustment

for home market imputed credit

expenses should be made when CV is

the basis for normal value. We use

imputed credit expenses to measure the

effect of a specific respondent’s selling

practices in the United States and in the

comparison market. Because Borusan’s

U.S. sales were export price sales, the

adjustment entails adding U.S. imputed

credit to the CV, and subtracting home

market imputed credit from the CV.

Although we added the U.S. imputed

credit for the preliminary results, we

neglected to deduct the home market

imputed credit. We have made this

correction for the final results.

We disagree with the petitioners’

assertion that, because Borusan did not

calculate its home market credit

expense using monthly interest rates,

we should disallow this adjustment.

Borusan calculated this expense on a

weighted-average basis, i.e., the total

principle times the number of days

utilized for each short-term loan. This

methodology is consistent with that

used in calculating interest for both the

1993–94 and the 1994–95 reviews of

this proceeding, and we did not request

that Borusan recalculate this expense

using monthly interest rates. Under

these facts, it would be inappropriate to

deny this adjustment.

We also disagree that a deduction for

the quantity rebate, as proposed by the

petitioners, is appropriate, because the

quantity rebate is not part of the

opportunity cost of the use of money in

each sale. Instead, the quantity rebate is

given after payment has been made by

Borusan’s customer.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine that the following margin

exists for the period May 1, 1996,

through April 30, 1997:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

The Borusan Group .................. 0.02

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. As

discussed above, because the number of

transactions involved in this review and

other simplification methods prevent

entry-by-entry assessments, we have

calculated importer-specific assessment

rates. We divided the total dumping

margins for the reviewed sales by the

total entered value of those reviewed

sales. We will direct Customs to assess

the resulting percentage margin against

the entered customs values for the

subject merchandise on each of that

importer’s entries under the relevant

order during the review period.6 While

the Department is aware that the entered

value of the reviewed sales is not

necessarily equal to the entered value of

entries during the POR, use of entered

value of sales as the basis of the

assessment rate permits the Department

to collect a reasonable approximation of

the antidumping duties which would

have been determined if the Department

had reviewed those sales of

merchandise actually entered during the

POR.

Furthermore, the following 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 results of

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a) of the Act: (1) the cash

deposit rate for Borusan will be zero; (2)

for merchandise exported by

manufacturers or exporters not covered

in this review but covered in a previous

segment of this proceeding, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published in the

most recent final results in which that

manufacturer or exporter participated;

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered

in this review or in any previous

segment of this proceeding, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in

these final results of review or in the

most recent final results in which that

manufacturer participated; and (4) if

neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this

review or in any previous segment of

this proceeding, the cash deposit rate

will be 14.74 percent, the all others rate

established in the less-than-fair-value

investigation. These deposit

requirements shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility 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 in the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

This notice also is the only reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the return or

destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to

comply is a violation of the APO.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 18, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–17250 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

National Estuarine Research Reserve

System

AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management (OCRM),

National Ocean Service (NOS), National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of proposed boundary

expansion for the Padilla Bay National

Estuarine Research Reserve.

SUMMARY: The Sanctuaries and Reserves

Division of OCRM is considering a

requesting by the Washington State

Department of Ecology to include the 92
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices 35201

acre Hat Island adjacent to the boundary

of the Padilla Bay National Estuarine

Research Reserve (PBNERR) within the

PBNERR boundary. Hat Island,

currently in state ownership, contains

primarily forested upland, rocky cliffs,

rocky shores, and intertidal seagrass

habitats. The island supports old growth

forests dating back to the 1600’s, active

nesting and perching habitat for state

and federally threatened and

endangered bird species, and unique

vegetative communities including the

‘‘Idaho bunchgrass’’ recommended for

protection by the Washington State

Natural Heritage Program. It provides

ideal research and education

opportunities for the PBNERR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Stevens, Reserve Manager, Padilla

Bay National Estuarine Research

Reserve, Breazeale-Padilla Bay

Interpretive Center, 1043 Bay ViewEdison Road, Mount Vernon,

Washington 98273; Phone (360) 428–

1558 or Nina Garfield, Sanctuaries and

Reserves Division, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, SSMC4,

11th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910;

Phone (301) 713–3141, ext. 171.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research

Reserve (PBNERR) was designated in

1980 pursuant to section 315 of the

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,

as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1461. The

PBNERR includes more than 10,000

acres within its administrative boundary

comprising eelgrass, subtidal sand and

mud habitats, and an upland farm area.

Washington State requested NOAA

approval to amend the PBNERR

boundary to include the state-owned

Hat Island adjacent to the current

boundary. For several years Hat Island

has been discussed for possible

inclusion into the PBNERR boundary.

During original boundary planning

efforts by the Governor’s Steering

Committee for the Reserve in 1979–80,

Hat Island was recognized as a valuable

asset for inclusion, but due to its private

ownership and extreme high cost, it was

decided to leave it outside the boundary

and only include the two islands

(Saddlebag and Dot) to the north which

were already owned by the State.

Interest in including Hat Island at a

future date was noted in the

management plan for future

consideration. In the early 1990’s, Hat

Island was purchased by the Nature

Conservancy, and then by the State with

funds appropriated for the Washington

Wildlife and Recreation Program, with

interim management responsibility

granted to the Washington Department

of Natural Resources (WDNR).

Discussions between the Washington

Department of Ecology (the PBNERR’s

managing authority) and the WDNR

have concluded that the island is best

suited for inclusion in the PBNERR.

The inclusion of Hat Island into the

PBNERR will enhance opportunities for

research, monitoring, education, and

management of Puget Sound’s unique

estuarine resources.

The expansion proposes inclusion of

the 92 acres Hat Island on the western

boundary of the PBNERR. This island is

dominated by forested uplands,

including old growth stands of Douglas

fir, steep rocky cliffs, unique vegetative

communities, and rocky shoreline, and

intertidal and subtidal seagrass

communities.

Any person wishing to comment on

the proposed boundary expansion may

forward written comments to Ms. Nina

Garfield, Sanctuaries and Reserves

Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, 1305 East-West

Highway, SSMC4, 11th Floor, Silver

Spring, MD 20910. Comments must be

submitted no later than thirty (30)

calendar days from issuance of this

notice.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog

Number 11.420 (Coastal Zone Management)

Research Reserves.)

Dated: June 22, 1998.

Nancy Foster,

Asssistant Administrator, Ocean Services and

Coastal Zone Management.

[FR Doc. 98–17260 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Defense has

submitted to OMB for clearance, the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.,

Chapter 35).

Title, Associated Form, and OMB

Number: Customer Service Survey—

Regulatory Program, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers; ENG 5065; OMB Number

0710—[To Be Determined].

Type of Request: New Collection.

Number of Respondents: 60,000.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 60,000.

Average Burden Per Response: 15

minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 15,000.

Needs And Uses: The survey form

will be provided to the public when

they receive a regulatory product,

primarily a permit decision or wetland

determination. The information

collected will be used to determine

what areas of the program can be

improved and to consider policy areas

which may need revision to improve

customer satisfaction. Without this

customer survey, we could not comply

with Executive Order 12862, ‘‘Setting

Customer Service Standards,’’ and

would have to rely on more informal

and less structured, and therefore less

effective, methods of obtaining public

input.

Affected Public: Individuals or

Households; Business or Other ForProfit; Not-For-Profit Institutions;

Farms; State, Local or Tribal

Government.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Mr. James A. Laity.

Written comments and

recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent to

Mr. Laity at the Office of Management

and Budget, Desk Officer for U.S. Army

COE, Room 10202, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert

Cushing.

Written requests for copies of the

information collection proposal should

be sent to Mr. Cushing WHS/DIOR, 1215

Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204,

Arlington, VA 22202–4302.

Dated: June 22, 1998.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 98–17160 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Defense has

submitted to OMB for clearance, the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

Title and OMB Number: Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS) Part 205,

Publicizing Contract Actions, and

DFARS 252.205–7000, Provision of

Information to Cooperative Agreement

Holders; OMB Number 0704–0286.