20950 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Notices

specific rate established for the most

recent period; (3) for all other PRC

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be

the PRC-wide rate, 201.63 percent; and

(4) for all other non-PRC exporters of the

subject merchandise, the cash deposit

rate will be the rate applicable to the

PRC supplier of that exporter.

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

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 section 351.305(a)(3) of the

Department’s regulations. 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.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: April 7, 2000.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix I

1. Facts Available

A. Non-Respondents and Improperly Filed

and Served Responses

B. Haiwang

C. Ningbo Nanlian

D. HFTC5

2. Recission of the New Shipper Review of

Yancheng Baolong Biochemical Products

(Baolong Biochemical)

3. Circumstance of Sale Adjustments:

Imputed Credit Expense

4. Factor Valuation

5. Deposit and Assessment Rates for HFTC30

and other companies with Huaiyin

Foreign Trade Corporation in their title.

[FR Doc. 00–9824 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

North American Free-Trade

Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel

Reviews; Notice of Request for an

Extraordinary Challenge Committee

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United

States Section, International Trade

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Request for an

Extraordinary Challenge Committee to

review issues raised by the June 18,

1999 and February 10, 2000 decisions of

the binational NAFTA Panel that

reviewed the final results of

administrative review and the

redetermination pursuant to remand by

the United States Department of

Commerce (the Department) in the

above-captioned proceeding. This

request was filed with the United States

Section of the NAFTA Secretariat on

March 23, 2000.

SUMMARY: On March 23, 2000, the Office

of the United States Trade

Representative filed a Request for an

Extraordinary Challenge Committee to

review decisions dated June 18, 1999

and February 10, 2000. On June 18,

1999, the panel convened in this

proceeding issued it Opinion an Order.

The Panel remanded to the International

Trade Administration on the grounds

that the Department erred in basing its

normal-value calculations on Type I

cement in both bulk and bagged form,

and it remanded this issue to the

Department for recalculation using only

sales in bulk form. On February 10,

2000 the Panel affirmed the Final

Results of Redetermination pursuant to

Panel Remand, without commenting on

the bulk/bagged issue. The NAFTA

Secretariat has assigned Case Number

ECC–2000–1904–01USA to this request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caratina L. Alston, United States

Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite

2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,

Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter

19 of the North American Free-Trade

Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a

mechanism to replace domestic judicial

review of final determinations in

antidumping and countervailing duty

cases involving imports from a NAFTA

country with review by independent

binational panels. When a Request for

Panel Review is filed, a panel is

established to act in place of national

courts to review expeditiously the final

determination to determine whether it

conforms with the antidumping or

countervailing duty law of the country

that made the determination.

Under Article 1904.13 of the

Agreement, the Government of the

United States, Canada and Mexico

established Rules of Procedure for

Article 1904 Extraordinary Challenge

Committees (‘‘ECC Rules’’). These ECC

Rules were published in the Federal

Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR

8702). The ECC Rules give effect to the

provisions of Chapter Nineteen of the

Agreement with respect to

Extraordinary Challenge Committee

proceedings conducted pursuant to

Article 1904 of the Agreement. The ECC

Rules are intended to result in decisions

typically within 90 days after the

establishment of an Extraordinary

Challenge Committee. The

Extraordinary Challenge Committee

proceeding in this matter will be

conducted in accordance with these

ECC Rules.

Background

On April 9, 1997, the Department

published the final results of the fifth

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on gray

portland cement and clinker from

Mexico. During the period of review,

respondent CEMEX, S.A. de C.V., sold

Type II cement in bulk form in the

United States. Because the Department

found CEMEX’s home-market sales of

Type II cement to be outside the

ordinary course of trade, the Department

compared CEMEX’s U.S. sales of Type

II cement to its home-market sales of a

similar product—Type I cement. The

Department determined that the foreign

like product included all Type I cement,

whether or not packed in bags. CEMEX

objected to the Department’s finding

that the ‘‘similar’’ foreign like products

included both bulk and bagged

merchandise, and it requested

binational panel review pursuant to

Chapter 19 of the NAFTA.

On June 18, 1999, the Panel convened

in this proceeding issued its Opinion

and Order. The Panel held that the

Department erred in basing its normalvalue calculations on Type I cement in

both bulk and bagged form, and it

remanded this issue to the Department

for recalculation using only sales in

bulk form. In reaching its decision, the

Panel held that Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. v.

United States, 66F. 3d 1204 (Fed. Cir.

1995), does not mandate deference to

the Department’s foreign-like-product

analysis in this case, and it made

findings of fact relying on evidence that

was not part of the administrative

record. One panelist dissented from the

Panel’s resolution of the bulk/bagged

issue with respect to the standard of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Notices 20951

review and the Panels reliance of

evidence that was not part of the

administrative record.

Commerce issued its determination

on remand on November 15, 1999. The

Department explained, ‘‘[w]e have

implemented the Panel’s ruling and

revised our calculations to exclude

home-market sales of bagged cement

from the calculation of normal value.’’

The Panel affirmed the Department’s

Remand Determination, without

commenting on the bulk/bagged issue.

Request for an Extraordinary

Challenge Committee:

On March 23, 2000, the United States

Trade Representative filed a Request for

an Extraordinary Challenge Committee

on behalf of the United States

Government in its capacity as a Party to

the North American Free Trade

Agreement, with the United States

Secretary of the NAFTA Secretariat. The

United States alleges that the Panel

manifestly exceeded its powers,

authority or jurisdiction by failing to

apply the appropriate standard of

review in three instances: (1) When the

panel declined to defer to the

Department’s interpretation of the

model-match provisions of the statute,

as required by binding precedent of the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit as set forth in Koyo Seiko Co.,

Ltd. v. United States, 66 F.3d 1204 (Fed.

Cir. 1995); (2) when it did not confine

its review to the administrative record

developed before the investigating

authority; and (3) when, upon holding

that the Department did not apply the

foreign-like-product statute properly, it

usurped the Department’s authority as

investigating authority and issued its

own findings of fact.

Rule 40 of the ECC Rules requires that

Notices of Appearance in this

proceeding must be filed with the

United States Secretary within 10 days

after the Request is filed (By April 3,

2000). Rule 42 of the ECC Rules, briefs

must be filed with the United States

Secretary within 21 days of the filing of

the Request (by April 13, 2000).

Dated: March 27, 2000.

Caratina L. Alston,

United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 00–9725 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–GT–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 041000B]

Availability of a Draft Environmental

Assessment/Finding of No Significant

Impact and Receipt of an Application

for an Incidental Take Permit (1233)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an

application for an incidental take permit

(Permit) from the Idaho Department of

Fish and Game (IDFG) according to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (ESA). As required by the

ESA, IDFG has also prepared a

conservation plan (Plan) designed to

minimize and mitigate any such take of

endangered or threatened species. The

Permit application is for the incidental

take of ESA-listed adult and juvenile

salmonids associated with otherwise

lawful recreational fisheries on nonlisted species in the Snake River and its

tributaries in the State of Idaho. The

duration of the proposed Permit and

Plan is five years. The Permit

application includes the proposed Plan

submitted by IDFG. NMFS also

announces the availability of a draft

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the

Permit application. NMFS is furnishing

this notice in order to allow other

agencies and the public an opportunity

to review and comment on these

documents. All comments received will

become part of the public record and

will be available for review pursuant to

the ESA.

DATES: Written comments from

interested parties on the Permit

application, Plan, and draft EA must be

received at the appropriate address or

fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later

than 5 p.m. Pacific daylight time on

May 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

application, Plan, or draft EA should be

sent to Herbert Pollard, Sustainable

Fisheries Division, NWR2, 525 NE

Oregon Street, Suite 510, Portland, OR

97232–2737. Comments may also be

sent via fax to (208) 378–5699.

Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via e-mail or the internet.

Requests for copies of the Permit

application, Plan, and draft EA should

be directed to the Sustainable Fisheries

Division (H/IF Br.), NWR2, 525 NE

Oregon Street, Suite 510, Portland, OR

97232–2737. Comments received will

also be available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours by calling (208) 378–5614.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Herbert Pollard, Portland, OR (ph.: (208)

378–5614, fax: (208) 378–5699, e-mail:

Herbert.Pollard@noaa.gov)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 9

of the ESA and Federal regulations

prohibit the ‘‘taking’’ of a species listed

as endangered or threatened. The term

‘‘take’’ is defined under the ESA to

mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or

to attempt to engage in any such

conduct. NMFS may issue permits,

under limited circumstances, to take

listed species incidental to, and not the

purpose of, otherwise lawful activities.

NMFS regulations governing permits for

threatened and endangered species are

promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.

Species Covered in This Notice

The following species, evolutionarily

significant units (ESU’s), and runs are

included in the Plan and Permit

application:

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha): threatened naturally

produced and artificially propagated

Snake River (SnR) spring/summer,

threatened SnR fall.

Sockeye salmon (O. nerka):

endangered SnR.

Steelhead (O. mykiss): threatened

SnR.

To date, final protective regulations

for threatened SnR steelhead under

section 4(d) of the ESA have not been

promulgated by NMFS. Protective

regulations are currently proposed for

threatened SnR Steelhead (64 FR 73479,

December 30, 1999. This notice of

receipt of an application requesting take

of this species is issued as a precaution

in the event that NMFS issues final

protective regulations that prohibit take

of threatened SnR steelhead. The

initiation of a 30-day public comment

period on the application, including its

proposed takes of threatened SnR

steelhead does not presuppose the

contents of the eventual final protective

regulations.

Background

From 1993 through 1998 recreational

fisheries managed by IDFG were

conducted under the terms of a section

10 (a)(1)(B) permit (844) issued by

NMFS on May 20, 1993. On May 26,

1999, permit 844 was replaced with

permit 1150 for continued conduct of

the same activities. Permit 1150 was

issued for only 7 months and expired on

December 31, 1999. IDFG has applied