Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Notices 15555 

1See Magnesium Metal From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 

2014, 79 FR 69834 (November 24, 2014) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

EFP would authorize the applicant to 

collect red drum in Federal waters using 

state of MS-licensed charter and 

headboat vessels (for-hire vessels). The 

purpose of this study is to collect 

population data specific to the genetics, 

age and growth, reproduction, and food 

habits of adult red drum in Federal 

waters where harvest is currently 

prohibited. The data would then be 

used to support future stock assessment 

information for red drum. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than April 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the application by any of the 

following methods: 

• Email: 

0648.XD816.Red.Drum.EFP@noaa.gov. 

Include in the subject line of the email 

comment the following document 

identifier: ‘‘MS Red Drum_EFP’’. 

• Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

The application and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request to any of the above 

addresses. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Branstetter, 727–824–5305; email: 

Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EFP is 

requested under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (16 

U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and regulations at 

50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted 

fishing. 

The harvest and possession of red 

drum in the Federal waters of the Gulf 

of Mexico (Gulf) has been prohibited 

since 1988 (53 FR 24662, June 29, 1988). 

The harvest and possession prohibition 

was implemented to protect the Gulf red 

drum stock from overfishing. The Gulf 

of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

(Council) is currently discussing 

whether to modify or remove this 

harvest and possession prohibition, but 

data regarding the adult red drum in 

Gulf Federal waters is limited. The 

existing population data is not 

representative of the Gulf red drum 

population as a whole as it mainly 

consists of younger and smaller red 

drum samples obtained from state 

waters where harvest is permitted. 

The proposed collection for scientific 

research involves activities that would 

be prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR 

part 622, as they pertain to red drum 

managed by the Council. Specifically, 

the EFP requests exemption from 

Federal regulations at § 622.92 

(Prohibited species) that prohibit the 

harvest and possession of red drum in 

Gulf Federal waters. 

The applicant requests authorization 

through the EFP to allow state of MSlicensed for-hire vessels to have a 

recreational bag and possession limit of 

one red drum per person per trip from 

Federal waters. There would be no size 

limits applicable for the red drum 

collected through this EFP. 

Additionally, the red drum bag and 

possession limits for captain and crew 

of any for-hire vessel participating in 

this study would be zero. 

Beginning in the fall of 2015, the 

applicant requests to collect a maximum 

of 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) of red drum 

during a 2-year period. The 30,000 lb 

(13,608 kg) is equivalent to 

approximately 2,000 red drum or about 

1,000 red drum per each year of the 

study. According to MS DMR, as many 

as 70 for-hire vessels would be a part of 

the study. For any vessel trip that plans 

to harvest red drum, the vessel would be 

required to hail-in and hail-out with a 

representative of MS DMR using an 

existing MS DMR electronic reporting 

format. A representative of MS DMR 

would then meet the vessel that has red 

drum onboard harvested from Federal 

waters to collect sample information. 

The applicant would monitor the 

amount of red drum collected to ensure 

that the 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) sample 

limit is not exceeded. After biological 

sampling by MS DMR is completed for 

each red drum landed by participating 

for-hire vessels, recreational fishers 

from the for-hire vessel would be 

allowed to retain the red drum as 

recreational harvest. All red drum 

collected through this study would be 

harvested during regular for-hire trips 

using hook-and-line gear in Gulf Federal 

waters. A MS-licensed for-hire vessel 

would not be permitted to fish for or 

possess either Gulf reef fish species or 

coastal migratory pelagic species unless 

that vessel also had a Federal charter 

vessel/headboat permit for the 

applicable species. It is not anticipated 

that the study will increase any overall 

fishing effort in the Gulf. 

Samples to be collected by the 

applicant include biological material for 

red drum population genetics, age and 

growth, reproduction, and food habits 

analyses of adult red drum in Federal 

waters. Some specific information to be 

collected include using molecular 

techniques to identify possible metapopulations and genetic structure, 

stomach content analysis, tissue 

analysis, several length measurements, 

otolith sampling, and histology analysis. 

The research data are intended to 

provide better life history information to 

assist with any future red drum stock 

assessments and to assist the Council 

with future management decisions. 

NMFS finds this application warrants 

further consideration. Possible 

conditions the agency may impose on 

this permit, if it is indeed granted, 

include but are not limited to, a 

prohibition of conducting research 

within marine protected areas, marine 

sanctuaries, or special management 

zones, without additional authorization. 

A report on the research would be due 

at the end of the collection period, to be 

submitted to NMFS and reviewed by the 

Council. 

A final decision on issuance of the 

EFP will depend on NMFS’ review of 

public comments received on the 

application, consultations with 

appropriate fishery management 

agencies of the affected states, the 

Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, as 

well as a determination that it is 

consistent with all applicable laws. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: March 18, 2015. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06661 Filed 3–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–896] 

Magnesium Metal From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2013–2014 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 24, 2015. 

SUMMARY: On November 24, 2014, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on magnesium 

metal from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the period April 

1, 2013 through March 31, 2014.1 This 

review covers two PRC producer/ 

exporters, Tianjin Magnesium 

International, Co., Ltd. (‘‘TMI’’) and 

Tianjin Magnesium Metal, Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘TMM’’). The Department gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results, 

but we received no comments. Hence, 

these final results are unchanged from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

15556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Notices 

2 Id. 

3See letter from TMI, ‘‘Magnesium Metal from 

the People’s Republic of China; A–570–896; 

Certification of No Sales by Tianjin Magnesium 

International, Co., Ltd.,’’ dated June 25, 2014, at 1; 

and letter from TMM, ‘‘Magnesium Metal from the 

People’s Republic of China; A–570–896; 

Certification of No Sales by Tianjin Magnesium 

Metal, Co., Ltd.,’’ dated July 21, 2014 at 1. 

4See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 69834. 

5 Id. 

6 Id. 

7The meaning of this term is the same as that 

used by the American Society for Testing and 

Materials in its Annual Book for ASTM Standards: 

Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys. 

8The material is already covered by existing 

antidumping orders. See Notice of Antidumping 

Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium from the People’s 

Republic of China, the Russian Federation and 

Ukraine; Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Pure Magnesium from the Russian 

Federation, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995); and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Pure Magnesium in 

Granular Form from the People’s Republic of China, 

66 FR 57936 (November 19, 2001). 

9This third exclusion for magnesium-based 

reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for 

reagent mixtures in the 2000–2001 investigations of 

magnesium from China, Israel, and Russia. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form From the 

People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 

(September 27, 2001); Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From 

Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); Final 

Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: 

Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 

FR 49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are 

not magnesium alloys, because they are not 

combined in liquid form and cast into the same 

ingot. 

10See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 69834–35. 

11See Non-Market Economy Antidumping 

Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 

FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (‘‘Assessment Practice 

Refinement’’) and the ‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section, 

below. 

12See 19 CFR 351.212(b). 

the Preliminary Results, and we 

continue to find that TMI and TMM did 

not have reviewable entries during the 

period of review (‘‘POR’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Terpstra or Erin Begnal, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office III, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3965 or (202) 482– 

1442, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 24, 2014, the 

Department published the Preliminary 

Results of the instant review.2 TMI and 

TMM submitted timely-filed 

certifications indicating that they had 

no shipments of subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR.3 In 

addition, in response to the 

Department’s query, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) did not 

provide any evidence that contradicted 

TMI’s and TMM’s claims of no 

shipments.4 The Department received 

no comments from interested parties 

concerning the results of the CBP query. 

Therefore, based on TMI’s and TMM’s 

certification and our analysis of CBP 

information, we preliminarily 

determined that TMI did not have any 

reviewable entries during the POR.5 We 

invited interested parties to comment on 

the Preliminary Results.6 We received 

no comments from interested parties. 

The Department conducted this 

review in accordance with section 

751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this 

antidumping duty order is magnesium 

metal from the PRC, which includes 

primary and secondary alloy 

magnesium metal, regardless of 

chemistry, raw material source, form, 

shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or 

alloy containing by weight primarily the 

element magnesium. Primary 

magnesium is produced by 

decomposing raw materials into 

magnesium metal. Secondary 

magnesium is produced by recycling 

magnesium-based scrap into magnesium 

metal. The magnesium covered by this 

order includes blends of primary and 

secondary magnesium. 

The subject merchandise includes the 

following alloy magnesium metal 

products made from primary and/or 

secondary magnesium including, 

without limitation, magnesium cast into 

ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other 

shapes; magnesium ground, chipped, 

crushed, or machined into rasping, 

granules, turnings, chips, powder, 

briquettes, and other shapes; and 

products that contain 50 percent or 

greater, but less than 99.8 percent, 

magnesium, by weight, and that have 

been entered into the United States as 

conforming to an ‘‘ASTM Specification 

for Magnesium Alloy’’ 7 and are thus 

outside the scope of the existing 

antidumping orders on magnesium from 

the PRC (generally referred to as ‘‘alloy’’ 

magnesium). 

The scope of this order excludes: (1) 

All forms of pure magnesium, including 

chemical combinations of magnesium 

and other material(s) in which the pure 

magnesium content is 50 percent or 

greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by 

weight, that do not conform to an 

‘‘ASTM Specification for Magnesium 

Alloy’’ 8; (2) magnesium that is in liquid 

or molten form; and (3) mixtures 

containing 90 percent or less 

magnesium in granular or powder form 

by weight and one or more of certain 

non-magnesium granular materials to 

make magnesium-based reagent 

mixtures, including lime, calcium 

metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, 

calcium carbonate, carbon, slag 

coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, 

feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium 

aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, 

graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth 

metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly 

ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, 

ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and 

colemanite.9

The merchandise subject to this order 

is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, 

and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS items 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes, the written 

description of the merchandise is 

dispositive. 

Final Determination of No Shipments 

As explained above, in the 

Preliminary Results, the Department 

found that TMI and TMM did not have 

reviewable entries during the POR.10

Also in the Preliminary Results, the 

Department stated that consistent with 

its refinement to its assessment practice 

in non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) cases, 

it is appropriate not to rescind the 

review in this circumstance but, rather, 

to complete the review with respect to 

TMI and TMM and to issue appropriate 

instructions to CBP based on the final 

results of the review.11

After issuing the Preliminary Results, 

the Department received no comments 

from interested parties, nor has it 

received any information that would 

cause it to revisit its preliminary results. 

Therefore, for these final results, the 

Department continues to find that TMI 

and TMM did not have any reviewable 

entries during the POR. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department determined, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

final results of this review.12 The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of these final results 

of review. 

Additionally, consistent with the 

Department’s refinement to its 

assessment practice in NME cases, 

because the Department determined that 

TMI and TMM had no shipments of 

subject merchandise during the POR, 

any suspended entries that entered 

under TMI’s antidumping duty case 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Notices 15557 

13See Assessment Practice Refinement, 76 FR 

65694. 

14See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Magnesium Metal From the People’s Republic of 

China, 70 FR 19928 (April 15, 2005). 

number (i.e., at that exporter’s rate) will 

be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.13 As 

TMM’s entries are subject to the PRCwide rate, any suspended entries will 

also be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of this notice of final 

results of the administrative review, as 

provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act: (1) For TMI, which claimed no 

shipments, the cash deposit rate will 

remain unchanged from the rate 

assigned to TMI in the most recently 

completed review of the company; (2) 

for previously investigated or reviewed 

PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not 

under review in this segment of the 

proceeding but who have separate rates, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the exporter-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate (including TMM, which 

claimed no shipments, but has not been 

found to be separate from the PRC-wide 

entity), the cash deposit rate will be the 

PRC-wide rate of 141.49 percent; 14 and 

(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this POR. 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. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also 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 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials, or 

conversion to judicial protective order, 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results and this notice in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 18, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06727 Filed 3–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 141015853–4853–01] 

RIN 0648–XD563 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding 

on a Petition To List the Harbor 

Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the 

Baltic Sea as an Endangered or 

Threatened Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS) Under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month Finding. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- 

month finding on a petition to list the 

harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 

in the Baltic Sea as an endangered or 

threatened distinct population segment 

(DPS) under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended. We conducted 

a DPS analysis based on our joint U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS 

DPS Policy. Based on the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that the harbor porpoise 

population in the Baltic Sea is not a DPS 

because it does not meet the criterion 

for significance outlined by our DPS 

Policy. Thus, we find this population is 

not warranted for listing. 

DATES: This finding was made on March 

24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Information used to make 

this finding is available for public 

inspection by appointment during 

normal business hours at NMFS, Office 

of Protected Resources, 1315 East West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The 

petition and a list of the references we 

used can also be found at http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ 

petition81.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Coll, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, (301) 427–8455. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 15, 2013, we received a 

petition from the WildEarth Guardians 

to list 81 marine species or 

subpopulations as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). We found that the 

petitioned actions may be warranted for 

24 species and 3 subpopulations, 

announced the initiation of status 

reviews, and solicited information from 

the public for each of the 24 species and 

3 subpopulations (78 FR 63941, October 

25, 2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 

2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 

79 FR 9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 

FR 10104, February 24, 2014). We 

completed comprehensive status 

reviews under the ESA for six foreign 

marine species and evaluated whether 

one foreign marine subpopulation met 

our DPS Policy criteria in response to 

the petition (79 FR 74954; December 16, 

2014). 

This notice addresses the finding for 

one of the petitioned subpopulations: a 

putative Baltic Sea harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena) subpopulation (79 

FR 9880; February 21, 2014). The 

remaining species and subpopulation 

will be addressed in subsequent 

findings. 

We are responsible for determining 

whether species are threatened or 

endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.). To make this 

determination, we first consider 

whether a group of organisms 

constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA, 

then whether the status of the species 

qualifies it for listing as either 

threatened or endangered. Section 3 of 

the ESA defines a ‘‘species’’ as ‘‘any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature.’’ On 

February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; 

together, the Services) adopted a policy 

describing what constitutes a DPS of a 

taxonomic species or subspecies (the 

DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722). The DPS 

Policy identified two elements that must 

be considered when identifying a DPS: 

(1) The discreteness of the population 

segment in relation to the remainder of 

the species (or subspecies) to which it 

belongs; and (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the remainder of 

the species (or subspecies) to which it 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES