Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Notices 18721

March 1, 1991 through February 29,

1992 (fifth review), and March 1, 1992

through February 28, 1993 (sixth

review).

For a detailed description of the

products covered by this order, see the

final results of review referenced above.

On August 7, 1995, the petitioners,

Hussey Copper, Ltd., The Miller

Company, Outokumpu American Brass,

Revere Copper Products, Inc.,

International Association of Machinists

and Aerospace Workers, International

Union, Allied Industrial Workers of

America (AFL-CIO), Mechanics

Educational Society of America (Local

56), and the United Steelworkers of

America, alleged that in calculating the

final antidumping duty margins the

Department committed the ministerial

errors described below. The Department

found the allegations constituted

ministerial errors (see memo from the

case analyst to Wendy Frankel dated

February 9, 1996). However, because the

petitioners filed suit with the CIT before

we could correct this error, we were

unable to make the corrections and

publish the amended final results of

reviews. Subsequently, the CIT granted

the Department leave to correct these

ministerial errors.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, all citations

to the statute and to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Ministerial Errors in Final Results of

Review

1990–1991 Administrative Review

Comment 1: The petitioners allege

that in the final results the Department

incorrectly inserted a line of

programming which adjusted Wieland’s

credit expenses based on the ratio

between Wieland’s U.S. deposit rate and

Wieland’s German short-term borrowing

rate, whereas in our notice of final

results we stated that we used the U.S.

prime rate to calculate Wieland’s

imputed U.S. credit expenses for this

period.

Department’s Position: We have

reviewed the questionnaire responses,

case briefs, and computer programs, and

we agree that including the line of

programming in question was a clerical

error. Accordingly, we have removed

the incorrect line of programming for

these amended final results.

Comment 2: The petitioners allege

that in the cost test, the Department

failed to subtract after-sale rebates and

home market freight charges from home

market prices, and failed to add home

market packing expenses to cost of

production.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the petitioners that it was a ministerial

error to fail to deduct after-sale rebates

and foreign inland freight expenses from

price, and to fail to add packing

expenses to costs, for the cost test. We

have changed these portions of our

analysis accordingly for these amended

final results.

1991–1992 Administrative Review

Comment 3: The petitioners allege

that the Department miscalculated the

metal value for sales of alloy CDA250 by

referring to the average value of two

other alloys, one of which was CDA

260/M32; the petitioners argue that this

last should have been CDA 260/M30.

Department’s Position: We have

reviewed the computer programs and

we agree with the petitioners. We have

corrected our analysis accordingly for

these amended final results.

Comment 4: The petitioners allege

that the Department did not use home

market sales of alloy CDA 250 for

comparison to U.S. sales in its computer

program, despite our statement in the

final results of review that we had used

them.

Department’s Position: We have

reviewed the computer programs and

we agree with the petitioners.

Accordingly, we have corrected our

analysis to include the appropriate

computer language to allow for

comparison of U.S. sales to home

market sales of alloy CDA 250, where

appropriate.

1991–1992 and 1992–1993

Administrative Reviews

Comment 5: The petitioners allege

that in both reviews the Department

incorrectly entered plus signs where

minus signs should appear in the valueadded tax adjustments for early

payment discounts.

Department’s Position: We have

reviewed the computer programs, we

agree with the petitioners, and we have

corrected our analyses accordingly for

these amended final results.

Amended Final Results of Reviews

After correcting the final results for

these ministerial errors, the Department

has determined that the following

margins exist for the fourth, fifth, and

sixth review periods:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Percent

Margin

Wieland-Werke

AG ................... 3/1/90–2/28/91 2.57

3/1/91–2/29/92 2.37

3/1/92–2/28/93 0.46

Individual differences between the

USP and FMV may vary from the above

percentages.

This notice serves as a 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

periods. 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.

These administrative reviews and this

notice are in accordance with section

751(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673(d))

and section 353.28(c) of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: April 23, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–10554 Filed 4–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[Docket No. 960409104–6104–01; I.D.

032596C]

Taking and Importing of Marine

Mammals; Italy as a Large-Scale High

Seas Driftnet Nation

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Identification of Large-Scale

High Seas Driftnet Nation.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Court of

International Trade ordered the

Secretary of Commerce to identify Italy

as a country for which there is reason

to believe its nationals or vessels

conduct large-scale driftnet fishing

beyond the exclusive economic zone of

any nation. The Secretary did so on

March 28, 1996. As a result, the

President is required to enter into

consultations with Italy within 30 days

after the identification to obtain an

agreement that will effect the immediate

termination of high seas large-scale

driftnetting by Italian vessels and

nationals. If consultations with Italy are

not satisfactorily concluded, the

importation into the United States of

fish, fish products, and sportfishing

equipment from Italy will be prohibited

under the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries

Enforcement Act (HSDFEA). Further,

the Secretary of the Treasury has been
18722 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Notices

directed to deny entry of Italian largescale driftnet vessels to U.S. ports and

navigable waters. In addition, pursuant

to the Dolphin Protection Consumer

Information Act (DPCIA), the

importation of certain fish and fish

products into the United States from

Italy is prohibited, unless Italy certifies

that such fish and fish products were

not caught with large-scale driftnets

anywhere on the high seas. This action

furthers the U.S. policy to support a

United Nations moratorium on high seas

driftnet fishing, in part because of the

harmful effects that such driftnets have

on marine mammals, including

dolphins.

EFFECTIVE DATES: Effective March 28,

1996, except for the documentation

requirements of the DPCIA, which take

effect on May 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wanda L. Cain, Fishery Biologist;

telephone: 301–713–2055, or fax: 301–

713–0376; or Paul Niemeier, Foreign

Affairs Specialist; telephone: 301–713–

2276, or fax: 301–713–2313.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The HSDFEA furthers the purposes of

United Nations General Assembly

Resolution 46/215, which called for a

worldwide ban on large-scale high seas

driftnet fishing beginning December 31,

1992. On March 18, 1996, the U.S. Court

of International Trade ordered the

Secretary of Commerce to identify Italy

as a country for which there is reason

to believe its nationals or vessels

conduct large scale driftnet fishing

beyond the exclusive economic zone of

any nation, pursuant to the HSDFEA (16

U.S.C. 1826a). On March 28, 1996, the

Secretary notified the President that he

had identified Italy as such a country.

Italian officials were notified by the

Department of State on March 29, 1996.

Pursuant to the HSDFEA, a chain of

actions is triggered once the Secretary of

Commerce notifies Italy that it has been

identified as a large-scale high seas

driftnet nation. If the consultations with

Italy, described in the Summary, are not

satisfactorily concluded within 90 days,

the President must direct the Secretary

of the Treasury to prohibit the

importation into the United States of

fish, fish products, and sport fishing

equipment from Italy. The Secretary of

the Treasury is required to implement

such prohibitions within 45 days of the

President’s direction.

If the above sanctions are insufficient

to persuade Italy to cease large-scale

high seas driftnet fishing within 6

months, or Italy retaliates against the

United States during that time as a

result of the sanctions, the Secretary of

Commerce is required to certify this fact

to the President. Such a certification is

deemed to be a certification under

section 8(a) of the Fishermen’s

Protective Act of 1967 (22 U.S.C.

1978(a), also known as the Pelly

Amendment). This authorizes the

President to restrict imports of ‘‘any

products from the offending country for

any duration’’ to achieve compliance

with the driftnet moratorium, so long as

such action is consistent with U.S.

obligations under the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The DPCIA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)(E))

requires that an exporting nation whose

fishing vessels engage in high seas

driftnet fishing provide documentary

evidence that certain fish or fish

products it wishes to export to the

United States were not harvested with a

large-scale driftnet on the high seas.

Importers are hereby notified that,

effective May 29, 1996, all shipments

from Italy containing fish and fish

products specified in regulations at 50

CFR 216.24(e)(2) are subject to the

importation requirements of the DPCIA.

This delayed-effectiveness period

allows shipments already in transit on

March 28, 1996, to clear Customs, and

allows adequate time for the appropriate

forms to be made available to Italian

exporters. These forms include NOAA

Form 370, Fisheries Certificate of

Origin, required by 50 CFR 216.24(e)(2).

The Fisheries Certificate of Origin must

accompany all imported shipments of

an item with a Harmonized Tariff

Schedule number for fish harvested by

or imported from a large-scale driftnet

nation. As part of those requirements,

an official of the Government of Italy

must certify that any such import does

not contain fish harvested with largescale driftnets anywhere on the high

seas.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction

Act, this collection of information has

been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

OMB Control No. 0648–0040.

Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, no person is required to respond to,

nor shall a person be subject to, a

penalty for failure to comply with a

collection of information subject to the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act unless that collection of

information displays a currently valid

OMB control number.

Dated: April 22, 1996.

Gary Matlock,

Program Management Officer, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 96–10470 Filed 4–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Cancellation of a Limit on Certain Wool

Textile Products Produced or

Manufactured in India

April 23, 1996.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs cancelling a

limit.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Aldrich, International Trade

Specialist, Office of Textiles and

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202) 482–4212.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March

3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1854); Uruguay Round Agreements

Act.

The United States Government has

decided to rescind the restraint on

imports of women’s and girls’ wool

coats in Category 435 from India

established on April 18, 1996, pursuant

to Article 6.10 of the Uruguay Round

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing

(ATC).

In the letter published below, the

Chairman of CITA directs the

Commissioner of Customs to cancel the

limit established for Category 435 for

the period April 18, 1996 through April

17, 1997.

A description of the textile and

apparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in the

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (see

Federal Register notice 60 FR 65299,

published on December 20, 1995). Also

see 61 FR 16760, published on April 17,

1996.

D. Michael Hutchinson,

Acting Chairman, Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

April 23, 1996.

Commissioner of Customs,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.

Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directive

issued to you on April 11, 1996, by the

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements. That directive

concerns imports of certain wool textile

products, produced or manufactured in India

and exported during the period which began