Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices 7519

228 acres. Forest Service review of the

project is required to minimize impacts

to natural resources, to develop an

approved plan of operations pursuant to

regulations at 36 CFR 228, and to

coordinate permitting with other state

and federal agencies. Alpine County

will review the proposal for a

Conditional Use Permit consistent with

planning and zoning and for

consistency with California’s Surface

Mining and Reclamation Act. Alpine

County and Forest Service will act as

joint lead agencies for the project

review. Scoping of interested agencies

began with a meeting on January 24,

1995. Public comments will be

requested through notices published in

the Reno Gazette-Journal, Douglas

County Record-Courier, Alpine

Enterprise, Nevada Appeal, and Tahoe

Daily Tribune, through direct mailings,

and through a public meeting to be held

at Turtle Rock Park, Alpine County on

February 22, 1995. Copies of the

proposed operating plan may be viewed

at the Carson and Bridgeport Ranger

District offices (Carson City, NV and

Bridgeport, CA), and at the Forest

Supervisor’s office (Sparks, NV). Forest

Service and Alpine County evaluated a

similar project at the same location in

1982. An environmental assessment/

environmental (EA/EIR) impact report

was written, and the project approved

but never implemented. Copies of the

1982 EA/EIR are available for review at

the Forest Supervisor’s office, and at the

Carson and Bridgeport Ranger Districts.

Preliminary issues associated with the

project are water quality in Monitor

Creek and the East Fork of the Carson

River, impacts to wetlands, reclamation

of disturbed areas, public safety, and

socioeconomic impacts. Alternatives

will be formulated which address these

and any other issues generated by

scoping; the no action alternative will

also be analyzed. A draft EIS/EIR is

anticipated for release in January of

1996.

Several government agencies will be

invited to participate in this project as

cooperating or participating agencies.

These agencies include, but are not

limited to, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, California Regional Water

Quality Control Board, California Dept.

of Fish and Game and California Dept.

of Transportation. Additional federal,

state, and local permits and licenses

may be required to implement the

proposed action. These may include,

but are not limited to, a Section 404

permit, Water Pollution Control Permit,

Reclamation Permit for Mining

Operations, and a General Discharge

Permit for Stormwater.

The Forest Service is the lead federal

agency for this project and R.M. ‘‘Jim’’

Nelson, Forest Supervisor of the

Toiyabe National Forest is the

responsible official. The Draft EIS is

expected to be filed with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and be available for review in January

of 1996. At that time, EPA will publish

a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS

in the Federal Register. The comment

period on the Draft EIS will be at least

45 days from the date the EPA’s notice

of availability appears in the Federal

Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this

early stage, it is important to give

reviewers notice of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of draft environmental impact

statements must structure their

participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewer’s position and contentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft environmental impact

stage but that are not raised until after

completion of the final environmental

impact statement may be waived or

dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon

v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir.

1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v.

Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D.

Wis. 1980). Because of these court

rulings, it is very important that those

interested in this proposed action

participate by the close of the 45 day

comment period so that substantive

comments and objections are made

available to the Forest Service at a time

when it can meaningfully consider them

and respond to them in the final

environmental impact statement. To

assist the Forest Service in identifying

and considering issues and concerns on

the proposed action, comments on the

draft environmental impact statement

should be as specific as possible. It is

also helpful if comments refer to

specific pages or chapters of the draft

statement. Comments may also address

the adequacy of the draft environmental

impact statement or the merits of the

alternatives formulated or discussed in

the statement. Reviewers may wish to

refer to the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Dated: January 31, 1995.

Gary Sayer,

Deputy Forest Supervisor, Toiyabe National

Forest.

[FR Doc. 95–3077 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–805, A–821–806, A–823–806]

Notice of Amended Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Antidumping Duty

Investigations of Pure and Alloy

Magnesium From the Russian

Federation and Pure Magnesium From

Ukraine

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Commerce Department.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dorothy Tomaszewski, Mark Wells, or

Erik Warga, Office of Antidumping

Investigations, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C., 20230; telephone

(202) 482–0631, 482–3003 or 482–0922.

Scopes of Investigations

These investigations cover pure and

alloy primary magnesium. The scopes

are fully described in the preliminary

determinations (see Notice of

Preliminary Determinations of Sales at

Less Than fair Value: Pure and Alloy

Magnesium from the Russian Federation

(59 FR 55427, November 7, 1994) and

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure

Magnesium from Ukraine (59 FR 55420,

November 7, 1994)).

Case History

On October 27, 1994, the Department

of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) made

its affirmative preliminary

determinations of sales at less than fair

value in the above-cited investigations

concerning subject merchandise from

Russia and Ukraine. The petitioners, on

November 14, 1994, alleged that the

Department made several ministerial

errors in those preliminary

determinations and requested that the

Department correct these ministerial

errors accordingly.

On December 22, 1994, the

Department found that the petitioners’

allegations relating to the use of the

initiation margins, as recalculated by

the Department, as best information
7520 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices

available (‘‘BIA’’) for non-cooperative

respondents and in the weightedaverage calculations of the ‘‘all others’’

rate, involved calculation errors that

were ministerial in nature. However, the

Department determined that these errors

did not warrant correction since such

correction did not result in a combined

change of at least 5 absolute percentage

points in, and no less than 25 percent

of, any of the original preliminary

dumping margins—the threshold for

amending our preliminary

determination.

On January 4, 1995, the petitioners

contested the Department’s finding,

stating that the ministerial errors did, in

fact, result in a combined change of at

least 5 absolute percentage points in,

and no less than 25 percent of, any of

the original preliminary dumping

margins and, therefore, require

correction in amended preliminary

determinations. The petitioners are

correct.

Amendment of Preliminary

Determinations

The Department is amending its

preliminary determinations. Set forth

below is the basis for the amended

preliminary determinations concerning

the recalculation of the initiation margin

as it relates to both the BIA rate for noncooperative respondents and the ‘‘all

others’’ rate.

It is not our normal practice to amend

preliminary determinations since these

determinations only establish estimated

margins, which are subject to

verification and which may change in

the final determination. However, the

Department has stated that it will

amend a preliminary determination to

correct for significant ministerial errors.

(See Amendment to Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Welded Stainless

Steel Pipes from Taiwan, 57 FR 33492

(July 29, 1992)).

Russia

In the preliminary determinations for

both pure and alloy magnesium from

Russia, the highest margins for each

class or kind (i.e., pure or alloy) of

subject merchandise in the petition, as

recalculated by the Department at

initiation to account for errors in

arithmetic and/or methodology, were

assigned as BIA for non-cooperative

respondents. In turn, the companyspecific BIA margins were among the

margins used in calculating the ‘‘all

others’’ rate. Certain factor values, based

on prices in the United States, were not

included in the recalculation of the

petition margin at initiation because (1)

petitioners failed to follow the

Department’s established hierarchy with

respect to factor valuation, and (2)

petitioners provided no basis for

determining that the United States

values were representative of the

appropriate surrogate country values.

Specifically, no value for factory

overhead was included in the

constructed value calculation on which

the initiation margins for pure and alloy

magnesium from Russia are based. In

addition, values for four inputs,

fluorspar, magnesium chloride, sodium

chloride, and barium chloride, as well

as a value for packing, were not

included in the initiation margin

calculations. Therefore, the petitioners

argued that the Department’s

recalculations result in the

understatement of the margin assigned

as BIA to non-cooperative respondents

and in the understatement of the margin

used in calculating the ‘‘all others’’ rate

as well.

The Department considers the

omission of certain factor values in the

recalculated margins from the petition

to be ministerial errors. Because

correction of this error would result in

a change of at least 5 absolute

percentage points in, but not less than

25 percent of, the BIA margins in the

preliminary determinations for pure and

alloy magnesium from Russia, this error

constitutes a significant ministerial

error.

The omission of factory overhead has

been corrected by applying the Brazilian

surrogate percentage value for factory

overhead to the petition’s total cost of

manufacture and the resulting figure

was included in the petition’s margin

calculation. Selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses and

profit in the petition’s margin

calculations for pure and alloy

magnesium from Russia were also

recalculated accordingly to account for

factory overhead. In addition, the

Brazilian surrogate value for fluorspar as

a flux additive was also included in the

revised margin assigned as BIA for noncooperative respondents and used in the

calculation of the ‘‘all others’’ rate. The

petitioners requested that the missing

factor values be based on U.S.

experience reported in the petition.

However, the factor values in the

petition were already determined by the

Department to be inappropriate.

Accordingly, the Department is

applying the surrogate values, which

more reasonably reflect the value of

these factors in the production process.

No values were included for

magnesium chloride, barium chloride,

or sodium chloride since those factors

were never considered in the petition’s

margin calculations. In addition,

packing could not be valued since the

petition provided no specific quantity

data on the factor for determining an

appropriate unit value.

Ukraine

In the preliminary determination for

pure magnesium from Ukraine, the

highest margin in the petition, as

recalculated by the Department at

initiation to account for errors in

arithmetic and/or methodology, was

assigned as BIA for non-cooperative

respondents. In turn, the companyspecific BIA margins were among the

margins used in calculating the ‘‘all

others’’ rate.

Furthermore, in calculating Gerald

Metals’ margin for pure magnesium

from Ukraine, the BIA margin, based on

this recalculated initiation margin, was

applied to certain U.S. sales transactions

of subject merchandise produced by an

uncooperative respondent, Zaporozhye.

Certain factor values, based on prices

in the United States, were not included

in the recalculation of the petition

margin at initiation because (1)

petitioners failed to follow the

Department’s established hierarchy with

respect to factor valuation, and (2)

petitioners provided no basis for

determining that the United States

values were representative of the

appropriate surrogate country values.

Specifically, no values for factory

overhead and two material inputs used

in the production of the subject

merchandise were included in the

constructed value calculation on which

the petition margin for pure magnesium

was based. Therefore, petitioners

argued, the Department’s recalculation

of the petition margin resulted in the

understatement of the margin assigned

as BIA to non-cooperative respondents,

in the understatement of the ‘‘all others’’

rate, and in the understatement of

Gerald Metals’ calculated margin.

The Department considers the

omission of certain factor values in the

recalculated petition margin to be a

ministerial error. Because correction of

this error would result in a change of at

least 5 absolute percentage points in,

but not less than 25 percent of, the BIA

margin in the preliminary determination

for pure magnesium from Ukraine, this

error constitutes a significant ministerial

error.

The ministerial error has been

corrected by applying the percentage

value for factory overhead used in the

preliminary determination margin

calculations (which was the factory

overhead rate from the petition because

a surrogate value for factory overhead

from either Indonesia or Egypt could not

be found) to the petition’s total cost of
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