Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Notices 12601

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations, as amended by

the interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Background

On December 10, 1996, the

Department published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of its

1995–1996 administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on shop towels

from Bangladesh (61 FR 65025). We

gave interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results. We

did not receive any comments. There

was no request for a hearing. The

Department has conducted this review

in accordance with section 751 of the

Act.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this

administrative review is shop towels.

Shop towels are absorbent industrial

wiping cloths made from a loosely

woven fabric. The fabric may be either

100-percent cotton or a blend of

materials. Shop towels are currently

classifiable under item numbers

6307.10.2005 and 6307.10.2015 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS).

Although HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding remains

dispositive.

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

percentage weighted-average margins

exist for the period March 1, 1995,

through February 29, 1996:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Greyfab (Bangladesh) Ltd ........ 0.00

Hashem International ................ 0.00

Khaled Textile Mills Ltd ............ 0.00

Shabnam Textiles ..................... 0.00

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions on each

exporter directly to the Customs

Service.

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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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 final results of

this administrative review, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the

cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be those rates

established above; (2) for previously

reviewed or investigated companies not

listed above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be 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

investigation (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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review

or the original investigation, the cash

deposit rate will be 4.60 percent, the

‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the

LTFV Final Determination (57 FR 3996).

These deposit requirements 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 this 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.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely

written notification of the return/

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: February 27, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–6548 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

[I.D. 021497A]

Development of the Commencement

Bay Natural Resource Damage

Assessment Restoration Plan, Pierce

County, WA

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce; and Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of a

Restoration Plan and Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (RP/FEIS).

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public

that the Restoration Plan and Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (RP/FEIS) for the

Commencement Bay Natural Resource

Damage Assessment (CB/NRDA)

restoration planning process is available

for public review.

DATES: Written comments are requested

by April 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

RP/FEIS, requests for inclusion on the

RP/FEIS mailing list, and requests for

copies of any documents associated

with the RP/FEIS should be directed to:

Judy Lantor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 3704 Griffin Lane SE., Suite

102, Olympia, WA 98501–2192, phone

(360) 753–6056/9440, or Dr. Robert

Clark Jr., NOAA/NMFS Restoration

Center NW, 7600 Sand Point Way NE.,

Seattle, WA 98115–0070, phone (206)

526–4338.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy

Lantor, FWS, phone (360) 753–6056/

9440, or Dr. Robert Clark Jr., NOAA/

NMFS, phone (206) 526–4338.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice

of availability (NOA) will be mailed to

all agencies, organizations, and

individuals who participated in the

scoping process or were identified

during the RP/EIS process. Copies of the

RP/FEIS have been sent to all

participants who have already requested

copies.

A. Background

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare

the RP/EIS was published in the Federal

Register (59 FR 44711–2, August 30,

1994). Formal and informal scoping

meetings were held to provide the
12602 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Notices

public with an early opportunity to

engage in discussions regarding the RP/

EIS and to provide oral and written

comments. The NOA of the draft RP/EIS

was published in the Federal Register

(61 FR 41383–41384, August 8, 1996)

with the comment period ending on

October 8, 1996. Based on comments

received, modifications were made to

the documents and a RP/FEIS was

prepared. The final RP will become part

of the Record of Decision. The

background and rationale for this action

were discussed in the NOA and are not

repeated here.

B. RP/FEIS

The purpose of preparing the RP/EIS

is to coordinate and implement

restoration projects under the CB/

NRDA. Since this is a programmatic EIS,

the management alternatives reflect

general approaches to the restoration of

natural resources and services injured as

a result of releases of hazardous

substances and discharges of oil in the

Commencement Bay environment. The

five alternatives subjected to detailed

analysis were: (1) No action; (2) speciesspecific; (3) habitat function; (4)

acquisition of equivalent natural

resources and services; and, (5)

integrated approach. The integrated

approach, which is a comprehensive

plan based on the habitat function

alternative, but supplemented with the

best features of the other alternatives, is

the FWS and NMFS/NOAA’s preferred

alternative. This alternative best meets

the needs of the CB/NRDA restoration

goals and principles by maximizing

ecological benefits to a wider range of

natural resources and their associated

services.

Dated: February 24, 1997.

Thomas J. Dwyer,

Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service.

Dated: March 4, 1997.

Nancy Foster,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–6543 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 021097A]

Gulf of Maine Aquaculture-Pinniped

Interaction Task Force

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA), the Gulf of Maine

Aquaculture-Pinniped Interaction Task

Force (Task Force) was established to

advise NMFS of issues and problems

regarding pinnipeds interacting in a

dangerous or damaging manner with

aquaculture resources in the Gulf of

Maine. The Task Force’s final report to

NMFS was made available for public

review and comment on February 20,

1996. A summary of the comments

received on the final report of the Task

Force and NMFS’ response to those

comments is provided in this notice.

The MMPA requires that NMFS

consider recommendations from the

Task Force and prepare a report to

Congress recommending alternatives to

mitigate the effects of aquaculturepinniped interactions. NMFS has

completed a draft report to Congress,

and it is available to the public upon

request for review and comment (see

ADDRESSES).

DATES: Comments on the draft report to

Congress must be submitted on or before

April 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the report are

available from, and written comments

should be sent to, Chief, Marine

Mammal Division, Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LTJG. Daniel Morris (508) 281–9388, or

Dr. Thomas Eagle (301) 713–2322.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The salmon aquaculture industry in

the northeastern United States has

grown substantially in the last decade,

as have regional populations of harbor

seals (Phoca vitulina) and gray seals

(Halichoerus grypus). The industry

claims that losses caused by seals

attacking the salmon pens are

substantial and that the frequency of

attacks has increased in recent years.

Seals are protected under the MMPA,

and the actions that salmon growers can

take to protect their pens from seals are

limited to non-lethal deterrence

measures by the MMPA.

Pursuant to section 120(h) of the

MMPA, a Task Force was established by

NMFS to examine the issues and

problems associated with pinnipedaquaculture interactions in the Gulf of

Maine. Task Force members were

selected from the aquaculture industry,

state government, the scientific

community, and conservation

organizations. The Task Force convened

three times for multi-day meetings,

visited pen-sites, conducted public

hearings, met with salmon growers,

conducted surveys, and reviewed

literature related to the issue, prior to

completion of its report. The report

contained Task Force recommendations

to mitigate the seal predation, all of

which represent the consensus of the

Task Force. NMFS is required to

consider recommendations of the Task

Force’s and draft a report to Congress

recommending options available to

mitigate the interaction. After

opportunity for public review and

comment of the draft report, NMFS

must submit its recommendations to

Congress.

Comments Received by NMFS on the

Task Force Report

NMFS received six letters from the

public regarding the Task Force report.

All of these comments supported

generally the Task Force findings and

recommendations. The Task Force

recommended against lethal deterrence

measures.In general, NMFS expects to

concur with that recommendation;

however, NMFS is considering

recommending that Congress reexamine

the prohibition on intentional lethal

taking of pinnipeds that was enacted in

the MMPA Amendments of 1994 so that

NMFS could authorize intentional lethal

methods on a case-by-case basis,

including the limited purpose of

removing pinnipeds that are inside netpens.

Comment: Is there anything known

about the age, sex, and health of the

seals that attack pens? Would lethal

removal of that population segment

have an adverse effect on the population

at large?

Response: Little is know about the

biology of seals that attack pens. The

impacts of lethal removal on affected

stocks, if the MMPA were amended for

such authority, would have to be

considered in granting an authorization.

Comment: In the typical attack

scenario, growers claim, ‘‘A seal would

not be caught in the act of attacking but

would be targeted as it approached the

vicinity of a previously attacked pen.’’

Identification of individual animals in

the wild is especially difficult, and it is

doubtful that the perpetrator of an attack

can be distinguished from others.

Response: Identifying animals for

lethal removal would be one of the

issues that would have to be addressed

if such an authority were included in

the MMPA.