Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices 7521

manufacture and the resulting figure

was added to the constructed value in

the petition’s margin calculation.

Selling, general and administrative

(SG&A) expenses and profit in the

petition’s margin calculations for pure

magnesium from Ukraine were also

recalculated accordingly to account for

factory overhead. In addition, the

Indonesian surrogate value for one of

the missing input values was also

figured in the revised margin

calculation. The petitioners requested

that the missing material values be

based on material values originally

reported in the petition. However, the

petition’s unit value for one of the

material inputs at issue was already

determined by the Department to be

inappropriate. Accordingly, the

Department determined that the

surrogate value for the factor more

reasonably reflects the value of the

factor in the production process.

The other material input in question

could not be valued since the petition

provided no specific quantity data or

description of the factor for determining

an appropriate unit value.

Addenda to Preliminary

Determinations

In our October 27, 1994, preliminary

determinations in these proceedings, we

stated that we would impose companyspecific duty deposit rates on certain

non-participating mandatory

respondents whose identities were

business proprietary and thus could not

be disclosed. Subsequent to publication

of those determinations, we were

informed by the U.S. Customs Service

that it could not administer suspensionof-liquidation instructions that involved

unidentified companies. Accordingly,

we did not assign company-specific

deposit rates to these companies;

instead, entries of merchandise sold by

these companies are subject to the ‘‘All

Others’’ deposit rate.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(2)

of the Act, the Department will direct

the U.S. Customs Service to continue to

require cash deposit or posting of bond

on all entries of subject merchandise

from Russia and Ukraine for noncooperative respondents and for ‘‘all

others’’ at the newly calculated rates,

that are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register. The suspension-ofliquidation will remain in effect until

further notice. The revised companyspecific BIA margins for noncooperative respondents and the ‘‘all

others’’ rate as well as Gerald Metals’

revised margin for pure magnesium

from Ukraine are as follows:

Pure

magnesium

(percent)

Alloy

magnesium

(percent)

Russia:

F&S ........................... 100.25 153.65

W&O Bergmann ........ 100.25 153.65

Derek Raphael & Co. 100.25 153.65

Marco Trading ........... 100.25 153.65

Wogen Group ............ 100.25 153.65

Alex ........................... 100.25 153.65

‘‘All others’’ ................ 94.30 153.65

Ukraine:

Gerald Metals ............ 83.32

Alusuisse-Lonza ........ 104.27

Derek Raphael .......... 104.27

Marco Trading ........... 104.27

Wogen Group ............ 104.27

Alex ........................... 104.27

Mages ........................ 104.27

F&S ........................... 104.27

‘‘All others’’ ................ 99.81

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of the

amended preliminary determinations. If

our final determinations are affirmative,

the ITC will determine whether imports

of the subject merchandise are

materially injuring, or threaten material

injury to, the U.S. industry, before the

later of 120 days after the date of the

original preliminary determinations

(October 27, 1994) or 45 days after our

final determinations.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 733(f) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.15(a)(4).

Dated: January 31, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–3133 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS-P

[A–201–504]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From

Mexico; Amendment to Final Results

of Antidumping Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final

results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: We are amending the final

results of our administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from

Mexico, published on January 9, 1995

(60 FR 2378). The amended notice

reflects the correction of a ministerial

error made in the calculation of cost of

production in the final results. We are

publishing this amendment in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lorenza Olivas or Rick Herring, Office

of Countervailing Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The review covered two exporters,

CINSA, S.A., and Acero Porcelanizado,

S.A. (APSA), and the period December

1, 1990 through November 30, 1991.

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results on February 11, 1994 (59 FR

6616), and the final results on January

9, 1995 (60 FR 2378) of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on porcelainon-steel cooking ware from Mexico (58

FR 43327).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of porcelain-on-steel cooking

ware, including tea kettles, which do

not have self-contained electric heating

elements. All of the foregoing are

constructed of steel and are enameled or

glazed with vitreous glasses. This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item number 7323.94.00.

Kitchenware currently entering under

HTS item number 7323.94.00.30 is not

subject to the order. The HTS item

number is provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

Amendment of Final Results

On January 13, 1995, CINSA, S.A.,

alleged that the Department made a

clerical error in calculating the cost of

production. CINSA argues that, in

accounting for the effects of inflation on

depreciation expense, the Department

overstated the cost of production by

applying an incorrect factor to fixed

overhead expense.

Petitioner argues that the Department

accurately implemented its intention in

calculating the cost of production.

We agree with CINSA. We reviewed

our calculation and have determined

that the computer instructions applied

an incorrect factor to total fixed

overhead. Our intent was to account

only for the effects of inflation on

depreciation expense because all other
7522 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices

fixed overhead costs already reflected

inflation. We have, therefore, amended

our calculation of fixed overhead by

applying a factor to fixed overhead to

account only for the effects of inflation

on depreciation expense.

Final Results of Review

Upon review of comments submitted,

the Department has determined the

margin for CINSA to be 13.35 percent

for the period December 1, 1990 through

November 30, 1991. The Customs

Service shall assess antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries.

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 amended final

results of review, as provided for by

section 751(a)(1) Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act): (1) the cash deposit

rate for CINSA will be 13.35 percent as

outlined above; (2) the cash deposit rate

for APSA will continue to be 4.66

percent, the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, a prior review, or the

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV), 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) the cash

deposit rate for all other exporters will

be 29.52 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation.

See, Floral Trade Council v. United

States, Slip Op. 93–79, and Federal

Mogul Corp. v. United States, Slip Op.

93–83.

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 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 the 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.

In addition, this notice 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 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and terms of the APO is a sanctionable

violation.

This notice is in accordance with

sections 751(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(f)) and 19 CFR 353.28(c).

Dated: February 2, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary, for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–3134 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Meeting of the Commission on Roles

and Missions of the Armed Forces

AGENCY: Department of Defense,

Commission on Roles and Missions of

the Armed Forces.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On January 25, 1995, 60 FR

4892, the Department of Defense

published a notice concerning a meeting

of the Commission on Roles and

Missions of the Armed Forces. The open

portion of this meeting, from 12:45 p.m.

until 2:15 p.m., was cancelled. All other

information remains unchanged.

Extraordinary circumstances compel

this amendment to be posted in less

than the 15-day requirement.

Dated: February 3, 1995.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 94–3163 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–4–M

Strategic Environmental Research and

Development Program, Scientific

Advisory Board

ACTION: Notice

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(P.L. 92–463), announcement is made of

the following Committee meeting:

Date of Meeting: March 7–9, 1995 from

0830 to approximately 1630.

Place: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,

MS.

Matters to be Considered: Research and

Development proposals and continuing

projects requesting Strategic Environmental

Research and Development Program funds in

excess of $1M will be reviewed.

This meeting is open to the public. Any

interested person may attend, appear before,

or file statements with the Scientific

Advisory Board at the time and in the

manner permitted by the Board.

For Further Information Contact: Ms. Amy

Levine, 901 North Street, Suite 303,

Arlington, VA, 22203, (703) 696–2124.

Dated: February 2, 1995.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 95–3027 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

Department of the Army

Intent To Prepare a Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) for the Proposed Section 204

Habitat Restoration Project at Poplar

Island in Talbot County, MD

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DoD.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

SUMMARY: The Baltimore District U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers is

investigating the use of dredged material

to restore Poplar Island. The project

would restore Poplar Island to its

approximate size in 1857, thereby

adding approximately 1,000 acres of

wildlife habitat in the Upper

Chesapeake Bay. The project would use

approximately 10 to 40 million cubic

yards of clean material, dredged

primarily from the southern approach

channels to Baltimore Harbor. The

amount of material placed at the site

would depend on the final design,

including the island size and shape, and

the relative proportions of upland and

wetland habitat constructed on the

island. Dredged material would be

placed behind dikes at the site, then

shaped and planted to create both

intertidal wetland and upland wildlife

habitat. The feasibility study is being

conducted under the authority of

Section 204 of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1992. The potential

non-Federal sponsor for the project is

the Maryland Port Administration

(MPA), a part of the Maryland

Department of Transportation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions about the proposed action

and DEIS can be addressed to Ms.

Stacey Brown, Project Manager,

Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, ATTN: CENAB–PL–PC, P.O.

Box 1715, Baltimore, Maryland 21203–

1715, telephone (410) 962–3639.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. The project will be constructed

under Section 204 of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1992,

which allows Federal funding for the

protection, restoration, and creation of

aquatic and ecologically related