Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices 18755

NHCI to be 4.48 percent ad valorem.

This rate adjusts the rate of 4.01 percent

found in the Preliminary Results to a

f.o.b. basis (see the GIA at 37237). We

will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess countervailing duties as indicated

above. The Department will also

instruct Customs to collect cash

deposits of estimated countervailing

duties in the percentages detailed above

of the f.o.b. invoice price on all

shipments of subject merchandise from

reviewed companies, except from

Timminco Limited (which was

excluded from the order in the original

investigations), entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication of the final

results of these reviews.

Because the URAA replaced the

general rule in favor of a country-wide

rate with a general rule in favor of

individual rates for investigated and

reviewed companies, the procedures for

establishing countervailing duty rates,

including those for non-reviewed

companies, are now essentially the same

as those in antidumping cases, except as

provided for in § 777A(e)(2)(B) of the

Act. The requested review will normally

cover only those companies specifically

named. See 19 CFR 355.22(a). Pursuant

to 19 CFR 355.22(g), for all companies

for which a review was not requested,

duties must be assessed at the cash

deposit rate, and cash deposits must

continue to be collected at the rate

previously ordered. As such the

countervailing duty cash deposit rate

applicable to a company can no longer

change, except pursuant to a request for

a review of that company. See FederalMogul Corporation and The Torrington

Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp.

782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council

v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT

1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e),

the antidumping regulation on

automatic assessment, which is

identical to 19 CFR 355.22(g)).

Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all

companies except those covered by

these reviews will be unchanged by the

results of these reviews.

We will instruct Customs to continue

to collect cash deposits for nonreviewed companies at the most recent

company-specific or country-wide rate

applicable to the company, except from

Timminco Limited (which was

excluded from the order in the original

investigations). Accordingly, the cash

deposit rates that will be applied to nonreviewed companies covered by these

orders are those established in the most

recently completed administrative

proceeding, conducted pursuant to the

statutory provisions that were in effect

prior to the URAA amendments. See

Pure and Alloy Magnesium from

Canada: Final Results of the First (1992)

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews (62 FR 13857 (March 24,

1997)). These rates shall apply to all

non-reviewed companies until a review

of a company assigned these rates is

requested. In addition, for the period

January 1, 1994 through December 1994,

the assessment rates applicable to all

non-reviewed companies covered by

these orders are the cash deposit rates

in effect at the time of entry.

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 355.34(d). Timely written

notification of 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.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)).

Dated: April 7, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration

(Acting).

[FR Doc. 97–9962 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 040997B]

RIN 0648–XX28

New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council,

Draft Restoration Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement (RP/

EIS)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft

restoration plan and environmental

impact statement (RP/EIS).

SUMMARY: NMFS, acting as

Administrative Trustee, announces the

availability of the New Bedford Harbor

Trustee Council’s (Council) draft RP/EIS

for the restoration of natural resources

that have been injured by releases of

hazardous substances, including

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in

the New Bedford Harbor Environment.

Written comments are requested on the

draft RP/EIS.

DATES: Written comments are requested

by June 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

draft RP/EIS, requests for inclusion on

the draft RP/EIS mailing list, and

requests for copies of any documents

associated with the draft RP/EIS should

be directed to: New Bedford Harbor

Trustee Council, c/o NMFS, F/NEO2, 1

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack

Terrill, Coordinator, 508–281–9136.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice

of Availability 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/EIS have been

sent to all participants who have already

requested copies.

A. Background

New Bedford Harbor is located in

southeastern Massachusetts at the

mouth of the Acushnet River on

Buzzards Bay. Adjacent to the harbor

are the communities of Acushnet,

Dartmouth, Fairhaven, and New

Bedford. New Bedford Harbor is

contaminated with high levels of

hazardous substances, including PCBs,

and is therefore on the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Superfund National Priorities

List, as well as being identified as a

priority Superfund site by the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Hazardous materials containing PCBs

were discharged directly into the

Acushnet River estuary and Buzzards

Bay and indirectly via the municipal

wastewater treatment system into the

same bodies of water. The sources of

these discharges were electronics

manufacturers who were major users of

PCBs from the time that their operations

commenced in the late 1940s until 1977,

when EPA banned the use and

manufacture of PCBs.

B. Cooperating Agencies

There are three natural resource

trustees on the Council representing the

Department of Commerce, the

Department of the Interior, and the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The

Secretary of Commerce has delegated

trustee responsibility to NOAA, with

NMFS having responsibility for

restoration. The Secretary of the Interior

has delegated trustee responsibility to

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The

Governor of Massachusetts has

delegated trustee responsibility to the

Executive Office of Environmental

Affairs.
18756 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices

C. Funding

The source of funding for the

Council’s actions is a $21 million

restoration fund, established as a result

of settlements between the Federal

government, the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, and the companies

responsible for releasing PCBs into New

Bedford Harbor. A separate account

funds the Harbor cleanup. By law and

under the terms of the settlement

agreements, the Council must finalize a

restoration plan for the New Bedford

Harbor Environment before funding

restoration projects, although necessary

plans and studies may be funded before

completion of the plan.

D. Development of the Draft RP/EIS

The Trustees determined that an EIS

was the most appropriate means to

ensure public participation in the

development of restoration alternatives,

and to analyze the environmental

impact of those alternatives. A Notice of

Intent to prepare the RP/EIS was

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 10835, February 28, 1995) and initial

scoping meetings were held in February

and March 1995. Restoration priorities

were determined from the list of

resources identified as having a high

probability of injury within the New

Bedford Harbor environment and which

would be likely candidates for

restoration. The restoration priorities

are: (1)Marshes or wetlands;

(2)recreation areas; (3)water column; (4)

habitats; (5)living resources; and

(6)endangered species.

E. Request for Ideas

A request for restoration ideas was

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 52164–52169, October 5, 1995). As a

result, 56 restoration ideas were

received from citizens, non-profit

organizations, municipalities, academic

institutions, state and Federal agencies,

and private businesses. The ideas

received are the alternatives analyzed in

the RP/EIS. The ideas were reviewed by

the Council’s community and technical

advisory committees and legal counsel.

The Committees provided

recommendations on which ideas

should be preferred alternatives to the

Council. The public was invited to

comment and a public hearing was held

on April 30, 1996. The Council then

selected 12 preferred alternatives after

considering the public comment and its

committees’ recommendation.

F. Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft

RP/EIS

The Council is proposing a

combination of near-term, future and

emergency actions, and plans and

studies, as appropriate, that together

would form the basis of an estuary-wide

plan to restore the affected environment.

This plan evaluates general restoration

alternatives as well as specific

restoration actions, and establishes a

process for the evaluation, selection,

and implementation of future

restoration actions.

G. Preferred Alternatives

From among the 56 ideas, the Council

selected 12 preferred alternatives for

near-term implementation. These ideas,

by restoration priority, are as follows:

Marshes or Wetlands

- Hydrologic restoration of Padanaram

Salt Marsh, Dartmouth

- Hydrologic restoration of Nonquitt

Marsh, Dartmouth

Recreation Areas

- Recreation and habitat

improvements to Fort Taber Park, New

Bedford

- Riverside/Belleville Avenue Marine

Recreational Park, New Bedford

Water Column

- Hurricane Barrier Box Culvert, New

Bedford/Fairhaven

Habitats

- Eelgrass habitat restoration, New

Bedford Harbor and Clarks Cove

- Land acquisition, Sconticut Neck,

Fairhaven

Living Resources

- Restoration and management of the

New Bedford area shellfishery

- Restoration of the Acushnet River

herring run

Endangered Species

- Buzzards Bay tern restoration and

habitat stabilization

Plans and Studies

- Wetlands restoration planning and

implementation

- New Bedford/Fairhaven Harbor

Master Plan (aspects related to natural

resources)

On finalization of this plan, the

Council will begin implementation of

selected near-term alternatives.

H. Coordination with Ongoing Cleanup

Actions

Since the Harbor cleanup is ongoing,

restoration actions must be coordinated

with that process to maximize

environmental benefits while ensuring

that neither process negates or interferes

with the other. As cleanup of the Harbor

proceeds, more restoration options will

become practicable. The Council

proposes an event-based process of idea

solicitation and selection to choose

future restoration actions, periodically

selecting restoration actions that are

practicable, effective, and appropriate in

the context of the ongoing cleanup. Full

public involvement in Council

decisionmaking will be maintained in

all aspects of the process.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. and 9601

et seq.

Dated: April 10, 1997.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Services.

[FR Doc. 97–9922 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 041197A]

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

convene public meetings.

DATES: The meetings will be held on

May 12–15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held

at the Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza, 333

Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA;

telephone: (504) 525–9444.

Council address: Gulf of Mexico

Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S.

Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa,

FL 33619.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director;

telephone: (813) 228–2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Council

May 14

8:30 a.m.—Convene.

8:45 a.m. - 12:00 noon—Receive

public testimony on Mackerel Total

Allocable Catch and Reef Fish

Amendment 15, published on April 11,

1997, 62 FR 17776.

1:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.—Continue

public testimony on Reef Fish

Amendment 15.

3:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.—Receive a

report of the Reef Fish Management

Committee.

May 15

8:30 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.—Receive a

report of the Mackerel Management

Committee.

11:15 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.—Receive a

report of the Shrimp Management

Committee.