Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Notices 40879

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Suzanne Flood or Chip Hayes, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–4733.

APPLICABLE STATUTE: Unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act

of 1930 (the Tariff Act), as amended, 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 of

Commerce’s (the Department’s)

regulations are to 19 CFR section 353

(April 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 18, 1998, the Department

published the final results of its

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on antifriction

bearings (other than tapered roller

bearings) and parts thereof from France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania,

Singapore, Sweden, and the United

Kingdom (63 FR 33320). The types of

subject merchandise covered by these

orders are ball bearings and parts

thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller bearings

and parts thereof (CRBs), and spherical

plain bearings and parts thereof (SPBs).

The reviews covered twenty

manufacturers/exporters and the period

May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997.

After publication of our final results, we

received timely allegations from the

petitioner and two respondents that we

made ministerial errors in calculating

the final results with regard to BBs from

Italy, Romania and the United Kingdom.

A summary of each allegation along

with the Department’s response is

included below. We corrected our

calculations, where we agree that we

made ministerial errors, in accordance

with section 751(h) of the Tariff Act.

Clerical Error Allegations

Allegation 1: The petitioner alleges

that the Department made clerical errors

in SKF Italy’s margin program that fail

to convert two variables to their full

values and fail to include all necessary

values in the calculation of revenue for

home-market transactions.

Department’s Position: We agree and

have changed SKF Italy’s margin

program accordingly.

Allegation 2: The respondent,

Technoimportexport (TIE), alleges that

the Department made a clerical error in

TIE’s margin program for two different

models. TIE alleges this clerical error

inflates certain values for packing

materials by a factor of 1,000.

Department’s Position: We agree that

this was a clerical error and have

changed the margin program

accordingly.

Allegation 3: The petitioner alleges

that due to a clerical error in the Barden

Corporation (U.K.) Ltd’s (Barden’s)

margin program certain values are being

assigned incorrectly. For further

proprietary discussion of this error, see

Memorandum to the File, dated 7/17/98.

Department’s Position: We agree and

have changed the margin program

accordingly. However, this change did

not affect Barden’s margin.

Amended Final Results of Reviews

As a result of the amended margin

calculations, the following weightedaverage percentage margins exist for the

period May 1, 1996, through April 30,

1997:

Country and manufacturer/exporterBBs margin

(percent)

Italy: SKF .................................. 3.80

Romania: TIE ............................ 0.02

United Kingdom: Barden .......... *6.63

*This margin did not change as a result of

the correction.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Because sampling and other

simplification methods prevent entryby-entry assessments, we have

calculated, wherever possible, an

exporter/importer-specific assessment

rate in accordance with the

methodology described in the final

results (63 FR 33320, 33321). 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

of review and as amended by this

determination. The amended deposit

requirements are effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice and shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

reviews.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 Department’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to an 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 with the regulations and the

terms of an APO is a violation which is

subject to sanction. Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) and (h) of the Tariff

Act and 19 CFR Section 353.28(c).

Dated: July 23, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–20515 Filed 7–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–802]

Agreement Suspending the

Antidumping Investigation on Uranium

From the Russian Federation

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is hereby notifying interested parties of

a change to the administration of

matched sales. Effective immediately,

the Department will use a calendar year

quota accounting rather than the

previously used delivery year quota

accounting.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Doyle, Karla Whalen or Letitia

Kress, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III,

Office VII, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202)

482–0159, (202) 482–1386 or (202) 482–

6412, respectively.

Background

Under the Amendment to the

Agreement Suspending the

Antidumping Investigation on Uranium

from the Russian Federation (57 FR
40880 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Notices

15373, April 1, 1994) (the ‘‘Matched

Sales’’ Amendment), the Department

has been administering the matched

uranium sales quota on a quota year

basis, April 1 through March 31, as

listed in the ‘‘Matched Sales’’

Amendment. On March 6, 1998, the

Department received a request from the

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on behalf

of certain of its members requesting that

the Department revise its practice and

administer the matched sales quota on

a calendar year basis, January 1 through

December 31. (See letter from NEI to the

Department on March 6, 1998, on public

record at the Department of Commerce

in room B–099). In this letter, NEI

suggests that a calendar year quota

system would make tracking operational

or contractual flexibilities for both

buyers and sellers of uranium more

consistent with their other internal

tracking systems (i.e., budgeting,

requests for quotes, deliveries). NEI

states that administration on a calendar

year basis would make the matched

sales quota system more consistent with

industry contracting practices, thereby

eliminating a potential barrier to

participation in the matched sales

program. Further, NEI notes that

reconciliation of historical transactions

which specified deliveries in 1996 and

1997 does not affect the commercial

balance among competing suppliers as

marketing opportunities have long

passed.

On May 5, 1998, the Department

requested comments from interested

parties (63 FR 24772). The Department

received ten sets of comments from

affected companies and reviewed each

set of comments. As all comments

received were supportive of the change,

and as the reallocation would not cause

any quota limitations to be exceeded,

the Department has determined that it is

reasonable to change the administration

of the matched sales quota from a quota

year basis (i.e., April 1–March 31) to a

calendar year basis (i.e., January 1–

December 31).

The Department examined two

ensuing issues: (1) The effect the change

will have on the existing approved

contracts and allocations of quota; and

(2) the necessity to arrive at a proper

accounting for the periods April 1, 1996

through December 31, 1996 and January

1, 2004 through March 31, 2004.

Concerning the first issue, the

Department has determined that

contracts already approved by the

Department in quota years 1996–1997

(4/1/96–3/31/97; 4/1/97–3/31/98) will

not be affected by the change to a

calendar year basis other than on the

Department’s accounting system. Thus,

these contracts stand as approved and

deliveries may continue as scheduled.

Further, although the amount of used

quota allocated to these two periods will

change under the new system, the

overall totals do not (See 63 FR 24772,

May 5, 1997).

Concerning the second issue, the

‘‘Matched Sales’’ Amendment details

that delivery quotas began on April 1,

1996, and would expire on March 31,

2004. By switching to a calendar year

basis, neither the period April 1, 1996,

through December 31, 1996 nor the

period January 1, 2004 through March

31, 2004, which were covered under the

Department’s previous quota year

methodology, can fall under a calendar

year methodology absent modification.

To resolve this issue, NEI proposed

designating calendar year 1996 as a

‘‘short’’ quota year, starting April 1,

1996 and ending December 31, 1996. As

these contracts have already been

approved and as the Department has

determined the appropriate

reconciliation in accounting, (See 63 FR

24772, May 5, 1997), the Department

agrees that the designation of a ‘‘short

year’’ a suitable resolution. In addition,

NEI proposed that calendar year 2003 be

designated as a ‘‘long’’ quota year,

beginning January 1, 2003 and ending

March 31, 2004. The Department agrees

that it is reasonable to designate

calendar year 2003 as a ‘‘long year’’

without disruption to the administration

of matched sales.

Thus, effective immediately, the

Department will use a calendar year

quota system in administering matched

sales. The following chart details the

current effective time periods and

applicable matched sales quotas.

Calendar year

Available

quota 1 (in

lbs. U308)

1998 .......................................... 3,600,000

1999 .......................................... 4,040,000

2000 .......................................... 4,230,000

2001 .......................................... 4,040,000

2002 .......................................... 4,890,000

2003 2 ........................................ 4,300,000

1Please note that some quota has already

been allocated to previously approved contracts. Please contact the listed Departmental

personnel for the exact available quota in

each calendar year. 2 ‘‘Long year’’ dates (1/1/03–3/31/04)

Dated: July 27, 1998

Joseph A. Spetrini.

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping

Countervailing Duty—Group III.

[FR Doc. 98–20516 Filed 7–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

North American Free-Trade

Agreement, Article 1904; NAFTA Panel

Reviews; Request for Panel Review

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United

States Section, International Trade

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of First Request for Panel

Review.

SUMMARY: On July 15, 1998, Wolverine

Tube (Canada) Inc. filed a First Request

for Panel Review with the United States

Section of the NAFTA Secretariat

pursuant to Article 1904 of the North

American Free Trade Agreement. Panel

review was requested of the final

antidumping duty administrative review

determination made by the International

Trade Administration, respecting Brass

Sheet and Strip from Canada. This

determination was published in the

Federal Register (63 FR 33037) on June

17, 1998. The NAFTA Secretariat has

assigned Case Number USA–CDA–98–

1904–03 to this request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James R. Holbein, United States

Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite

2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 20230, (202) 482–

5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter

19 of the North American Free-Trade

Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a

mechanism to replace domestic judicial

review of final determinations in

antidumping and countervailing duty

cases involving imports from a NAFTA

country with review by independent

binational panels. When a Request for

Panel Review is filed, a panel is

established to act in place of national

courts to review expeditiously the final

determination to determine whether it

conforms with the antidumping or

countervailing duty law of the country

that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement,

which came into force on January 1,

1994, the Government of the United

States, the Government of Canada and

the Government of Mexico established

Rules of Procedure for Article 1904

Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’).

These Rules were published in the

Federal Register on February 23, 1994

(59 FR 8686).

A first Request for Panel Review was

filed with the United States Section of

the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to

Article 1904 of the Agreement, on July

15, 1998, requesting panel review of the