Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 139 /Tuesday, July 21, 1998 / Notices 39071

was filed by the Board on April 21,

1997, and notice inviting public

comment was given in the Federal

Register (FTZ Docket 34–97, 62 FR

24393, 5/5/97) and was amended on

April 21, 1998; and,

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and the

Board’s regulations would be satisfied,

and that approval of the application, as

amended, would be in the public

interest;

Now, therefore, the Board hereby

grants authority for subzone status at the

ferroalloys and silicon metals

manufacturing plant of Globe

Metallurgical, Inc., located in Beverly,

Ohio (Subzone 138D), at the location

described in the application, subject to

the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations,

including § 400.28, and subject to the

following conditions:

1. Foreign status products consumed

in the production process shall be

subject to duty at the applicable rate;

2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR

146.41) shall be elected on all foreign

merchandise admitted to the subzone;

and

3. All foreign status merchandise

subject to an antidumping or

countervailing duty order (15 CFR

400.33) must be exported.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of

July 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–19398 Filed 7–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 994]

Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 183,

Austin, Texas

Pursuant to its authority under the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u),

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas, an application from the

Foreign Trade Zone of Central Texas,

Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No.

183, for authority to expand its zone to

include a site at the MET Center

industrial park in Austin, Texas, within

the Austin Customs port of entry, was

filed by the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ)

Board on August 4, 1997 (Docket 63–97,

62 FR 43700, 8/15/97);

Whereas, notice inviting public

comment was given in the Federal

Register and the application has been

processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and

the Board’s regulations; and,

Whereas, the Board has found that the

requirements of the Act and the

regulations are satisfied, and that the

proposal is in the public interest;

Now, therefore, the Board hereby

orders:

The grantee is authorized to expand

its zone as requested in the application,

subject to the Act and the Board’s

regulations, including Section 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of

July 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–19400 Filed 7–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–809]

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

From the Republic of Korea; Amended

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results

of antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On June 16, 1998, the

Department of Commerce published the

final results of administrative review of

the antidumping order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe from the

Republic of Korea (63 FR 32833). The

period of review is November 1, 1995,

through October 31, 1996. Subsequent

to the publication of the final results, we

received comments from respondents

and petitioners alleging various

ministerial errors. After analyzing the

comments submitted, we are amending

our final results to correct certain

ministerial errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marian Wells or Zak Smith;

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Group I, Office 1, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, US Department of

Commerce; 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone numbers (202) 482–6309 or

(202) 482–1279, respectively.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’), as amended, are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. Additionally, unless

otherwise indicated all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations are to 19

CFR part 353 (April 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 16, 1998, the Department

published the final results of

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe from Korea

covering the period November 1, 1995,

through October 31, 1996 (see, Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from

Korea; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR

32833 (‘‘Final Results’’). Subsequently,

the following interested parties

submitted ministerial error allegations:

SeAH Steel Coporation (‘‘SeAH’’) and

Hyundai Pipe Company Limited

(‘‘Hyundai’’)(collectively ‘‘the

respondents’’), and Allied Tube and

Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular

Division-Armco, Inc., and Wheatland

Tube Company (collectively ‘‘the

petitioners’’).

A summary of each allegation along

with the Department’s response is

included below. We are hereby

amending our final results, pursuant to

19 CFR 353.28(c), to reflect the

correction of those errors which are

clerical in nature.

Analysis of Ministerial Error

Allegations

Allegation 1: Hyundai alleges that in

the concordance program, the

Department inadvertently used a

different date of sale for Hyundai’s U.S.

sales than that specified in the Final

Results.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Hyundai and have altered the

concordance program such that the

appropriate date of sale, as discussed in

our Final Results, is used in both the

margin and concordance programs.

Allegation 2: Respondents allege that

in the concordance program the

Department inadvertently applied its

general and administrative expenses

(G&A) and interest expense adjustment

factor on a compounding basis for each
39072 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 139 /Tuesday, July 21, 1998 / Notices

subsequent sale within a control

number.

Department’s Position: We agree with

respondents and have altered the

concordance program in order to

eliminate the compounding of the

adjustment factor for G&A and interest

expenses.

Allegation 3: SeAH states that the

Department limited the coverage of U.S.

sales to the period November 1, 1995

through October 31, 1996 and, in doing

so, excluded sales made prior to

November 1, 1995, but entered during

the period of review (‘‘POR’’) from the

concordance program. The petitioners

argue that the Department correctly

limited the sales analyzed to those sales

made during the POR.

SeAH also asserts that the Department

excluded sales from the year 1995 by

incorrectly naming the months of 1995

in the concordance program. According

to SeAH, this resulted in the absence of

all 1995 sales in the concordance table

and therefore, the use of constructed

value for all 1995 sales.

SeAH further states that the

Department has used two different sales

date variables in the concordance and

margin programs.

Department’s Position: We agree with

SeAH on all three issues. Accordingly,

we have altered the concordance

program in order to include export price

(EP) sales made before the POR but

entered during the POR (see, comment

2 of the Final Results, at 32836).

Furthermore, since we incorrectly

named the variable representing sales

during 1995, we have altered the

concordance program to correct this

problem. Finally, we corrected the

inconsistent use of date variables in the

margin program by using the contract

date for all EP sales. For constructed

export price (‘‘CEP’’) sales, we use the

variable SALEDTU (sale date) as

discussed in our Final Results.

Allegation 4: SeAH maintains that the

Department incorrectly excluded certain

sales with entry dates during the POR in

its margin analysis program.

Department’s Position: We agree with

SeAH. However, this error only applies

to EP sales. For EP sales, we have

substituted the field name ENTRDTU

for SHIPDT2U in the margin analysis

program to correct this error.

Allegation 5: SeAH alleges that the

Department double counted U.S.

commissions by adding the amount of

commissions to the foreign market price

and deducting commissions from U.S.

price.

Department’s Position: We agree with

SeAH. To correct this error, we have

eliminated the deduction of

commissions in the calculation of U.S.

price.

Allegation 6: SeAH states that the

Department’s adjustment to duty

drawback was incorrectly calculated for

CEP sales. SeAH argues that the

Department has negated the claimed

duty drawback and calculated a

downward adjustment to the U.S. price.

Department’s Position: We agree with

SeAH. To correct this error, we have

recalculated the duty drawback for

SeAH’s CEP sales (see SeAH Correction

of Ministerial Errors Calculation

Memorandum, June 9, 1998).

Allegation 7: Petitioners argue that the

Department neglected to include any

selling expenses in the formula for

calculating constructed value (‘‘CV’’)

profit while including such expenses

when calculating total CV.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with petitioners that we made a

ministerial error when calculating CV

profit. When calculating CV profit we

applied the profit rate to a cost of

production figure exclusive of certain

selling expenses. We did this because

the profit rate was also calculated on a

basis exclusive of the same selling

expenses. Thus, we intentionally did

not include selling expenses when

calculating CV profit, and therefore, this

is not a ministerial error.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of the amended margin

calculations, the following weightedaverage percentage margins exist for the

period November 1, 1995 through

October 31, 1996:

Manufacturer/Exporter Percentage

margin

Hyundai ..................................... 2.64

SeAH ......................................... 2.63

In accordance with the methodology

in the Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Partial

Termination of Administrative Review:

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

from Korea (62 FR 55574), October 27,

1997, we calculated exporter/importerspecific assessment values by dividing

the total antidumping duties due for

each importer by the number of tons

used to determine the duties due. We

will direct the Customs Service to assess

the resulting per-ton dollar amount

against each ton of the merchandise

entered by these importers during the

review period.

We will also direct the Customs

Service to collect cash deposits of

estimated antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries in accordance with

the procedures discussed in the Final

Results and as amended by this

determination. The amended 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 this notice and shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a 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 the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination in accordance with

sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Act and

19 CFR 353.28(c).

Dated: July 15, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–19395 Filed 7–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instruments

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.

L. 89–651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part

301), we invite comments on the

question of whether instruments of

equivalent scientific value, for the

purposes for which the instruments

shown below are intended to be used,

are being manufactured in the United

States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and

be filed within 20 days with the

Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Applications may be

examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00

P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

Docket Number: 98–033. Applicant:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

200 S.W. 35th Street, Corvallis, OR

97333. Instrument: Nutrient Monitor

with Stainless Steel Mooring-frame-inline. Manufacturer: W.S. Ocean Systems

Ltd., United Kingdom. Intended Use: