Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices 19885

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak or Richard Herring,

Office of Countervailing Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC.; telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 12, 1992, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ (57 FR 36063)

of the antidumping order on PTFE resin

from Italy (53 FR 33163; August 30,

1988). On August 31, 1992, Ausimont

S.p.A. and Ausimont U.S.A. requested

an administrative review of the order for

the period August 1, 1991 through July

31, 1992. We initiated the review on

September 28, 1992 (57 FR 44551).

Verifications were conducted in Milan,

Italy, September 13–16, 1993, and in

Morristown, New Jersey, November 22–

23, 1993. On December 21, 1994, the

preliminary results of this

administrative review were published

(59 FR 65753). We have now completed

this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of PTFE resin which is

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) item number

3904.61.00. PTFE dispersions in water

and fine powders are not covered by

this order. The HTS item number is

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive. The order on PTFE

resin from Italy also covers PTFE wet

raw polymer exported from Italy to the

United States (see Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy;

Final Determination of Circumvention

of Antidumping Duty Order (58 FR

26100; April 30, 1993)). However,

because the Department issued its

preliminary affirmative determination of

circumvention and ordered the

suspension of liquidation of wet raw

polymer entries after the review period,

entries of PTFE wet raw polymer were

not subject to this particular review (see

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin

from Italy; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 59

FR 65753, and Memorandum to Joseph

A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary

for Import Administration, dated

September 10, 1993; The Third

Administrative Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order on Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from

Italy, which is on file in the Central

Records Unit (room B099 of the Main

Commerce Building)). The review

covers one manufacturer/exporter of

Italian PTFE resin to the United States,

Ausimont S.p.A., and the review period

is August 1, 1991 through July 31, 1992.

Final Results of the Review

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We did not receive

any comments. Therefore, the final

results are unchanged from those

presented in the preliminary results. As

a result of our comparison of United

States price with foreign market value,

we determine that the following

weighted-average dumping margin

existed during the period August 1,

1991 through July 31, 1992:

Manufacturer/exporter

Period

Margin

(percent)

Ausimont

S.p.A. ..... 08/01/91–07/31/92 13.31

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of these final results of this

administrative review, for all shipments

of the subject merchandise, entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for the reviewed company will be

13.31 percent; (2) for exporters not

covered in this review, but covered in

previous reviews or the original lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 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 LTFV

investigation, 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) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufactures and

exporters will be 46.46 percent, the ‘‘all

other’’ rate established in the original

LTFV investigation by the Department

(53 FR 26096, July 11, 1988), in

accordance with the decisions of the

CIT in Floral Trade Council v. United

States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (1993), and

Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United

States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (1993).

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 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 the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of

their responsibilities concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)(B)) and 19 CFR 353.22(c)(5).

Dated: April 7, 1995.

Paul L. Joffe,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–9939 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 040495C]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;

Notice of Availability of the Sea Turtle/

Shrimp Fishery Emergency Response

Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the

availability of an Emergency Response

Plan (ERP) for protecting sea turtles in

shrimp fishery operations. The ERP

provides a general statement of policy

with respect to NMFS’ enforcement

practice and use of future rulemaking in

response to elevated sea turtle

strandings associated with shrimping

effort and ensures compliance with sea

turtle conservation regulations.

DATES: The Sea Turtle/Shrimp Fishery

Emergency Response Plan (ERP)

describes NMFS policy as of March 14,

1994.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to obtain a

copy of the ERP should address

correspondence to the Protected Species

Branch, National Marine Fisheries

Service, Southeast Regional Office, 9721

Executive Center Drive, St. Petersburg,

FL, 33702 telephone: 813–570–5312.
19886 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles A. Oravetz, 813–570–5312, or

Russell Bellmer, 301–713–1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pursuant to section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq., NMFS consults on

shrimp fishing operations in the

southeastern United States that may

affect sea turtles listed as threatened or

endangered under the ESA. These

shrimp fishing operations are managed,

in part, under the Gulf of Mexico

Shrimp Fishery Management Plan and

the South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery

Management Plan, both implemented

pursuant to the Magnuson Fisheries

Management and Conservation Act, 16

U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and the Sea Turtle

Conservation Regulations at 50 CFR

227.72, implemented under the ESA.

Unprecedented levels of sea turtle

stranding levels in Texas, Louisiana,

and Georgia associated with shrimp

fishing during 1994 resulted in a

reinitiation of consultation pursuant to

50 CFR 402.16 on shrimp fishing in the

southeastern United States. The

resulting Biological Opinion (Opinion),

issued on November 14, 1994,

concluded that continued long-term

operation of the fishery under the

current management regime was likely

to jeopardize the continued existence of

the Kemp’s ridley and prevent the

recovery of loggerheads, but identified a

reasonable and prudent alternative to

allow the fishery to continue while

avoiding jeopardy. One of the

components of the alternative was to

develop an ERP by March 14, 1995, to

ensure compliance with sea turtle

conservation regulations and respond to

sea turtle stranding events. The ERP

provides internal guidance and policy

on NMFS’ enforcement efforts and seeks

to use future rulemaking to meet these

goals. The ERP is available for public

information, and NMFS will accept

public comments.

The scope of the ERP extends to

waters 10 nautical miles (18.5 km)

seaward of the COLREGs demarcation

line (72 COLREGs) as described in 33

CFR part 80. This includes offshore

waters, and does not include bays,

estuaries and sounds.

The Opinion includes an incidental

take statement identifying the expected

impact of takings as a result of shrimp

fishing. The Opinion provides that

strandings of sea turtles will be

considered an indicator of nearshore

mortality resulting from shrimp fishing

during periods when intensive

shrimping effort occurs and there are no

significant or intervening natural or

human sources of mortality other than

shrimping conclusively identified as the

cause of the strandings. The ERP

provides procedures for notification of

strandings by Sea Turtle Stranding and

Salvage Network coordinators to NMFS.

The ERP also provides procedures for

public dissemination of stranding report

summaries, enforcement activities, and

management measures.

In addition, the ERP provides internal

guidelines for enforcement actions and

future management measures to be

implemented through rulemaking. The

purpose of the ERP in providing this

guidance is to take a progressive

approach in avoiding increased levels of

strandings as those levels approach the

incidental take level identified in the

Opinion.

The ERP identifies two areas in which

strandings of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles

are historically high: The Northern Gulf

Interim Special Management Area,

including waters off Louisiana and

Texas, and the Atlantic Special

Management Area, including waters off

northeast Florida and Georgia, from the

COLREGS line out to 10 nautical miles

(18.5 km). From April 1 through

November 30, members of a trained

Turtle Excluder Device (TED) law

enforcement team will investigate

compliance with TED regulations in

these areas. If strandings exceed 75

percent of the weekly incidental take

levels, identified in the Opinion, for 2

consecutive weeks, management

measures will be implemented through

separate rulemaking pursuant to 50 CFR

227.72(e)(6) and the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.

(APA). These measures will remain in

effect for 30 days in those NMFS

statistical zones in which elevated

strandings occur and adjacent statistical

zones (or portions of adjacent zones),

seaward of the COLREGs line to 10

nautical miles (18.5 km). These

measures are expected to be:

1. Prohibition of the use of soft TEDs;

2. Prohibition of the use of bottom

opening TEDs;

3. Prohibition of the use of try nets,

unless equipped with legal TEDs; and

4. Prohibition of the use of flaps over

the escape opening of TEDs.

Changes to the size and extent of the

restricted area, or modification of

restrictions, may be required through

additional rulemaking effective for 30

days.

Continued elevated strandings

associated with shrimping effort after

the above restrictions have been

implemented may result in closures to

shrimp fishing in the NMFS statistical

zones in which elevated strandings

occur and adjacent statistical zones (or

portions of adjacent zones), seaward of

the COLREGs line to 10 nautical miles

(18.5 km). Area closures, if necessary,

will be implemented through separate

rulemaking pursuant to the procedures

identified at 50 CFR 227.72(e)(6) and the

APA. Changes to the size and extent of

the area closures, or modification of

restrictions, may be required, through

additional rulemaking, effective for 30

days.

The ERP further provides for

procedures in the event that the Agency

determines that such management

measures are not necessary despite

elevated stranding levels.

Lastly, the ERP provides for stranding

notification procedures, procedures

regarding enforcement efforts, and

procedures for taking management

measures in areas outside the Interim

Special Management Areas.

The Opinion, in addition to the ERP,

requires a number of other management

initiatives. In fulfilling these

requirements, permanent rules may be

prepared establishing special sea turtle

management areas and/or contingency

restrictions to the shrimp fishery. Such

rulemaking will be done through normal

rulemaking procedures, including

publication of a proposed rule with a

public comment period and, as

appropriate, public hearings, prior to

publication of a final rule and delayed

effective date.

Dated: April 5, 1995.

William W. Fox, Jr.,

Director, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9877 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

[I.D. 041195B]

Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Request to export nonreleasable

beached and stranded marine mammals

(P588).

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

Enoshima Aquarium, 2–17–25, KataseKaigan, Fujisawa-City, Kanagawa, 251,

Japan, has requested authorization to

export for public display purposes two

nonreleasable beached and stranded

California sea lions from a U.S.

rehabilitation facility.

ADDRESSES: The request for

authorization and related documents are

available for review upon written

request to the Chief, Permits Division,

F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources,