Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45965 

determines that the conditions of 19 

CFR 351.526 have not been met, and no 

adjustment to the rate for cash deposit 

purposes is warranted. 

Programs Preliminarily Determined to 

be Not Used 

We preliminarily determine that MTZ 

did not apply for or receive benefits 

during the POR under the programs 

listed below: 

1. Duty Free Replenishment Certificate 

(DFRC) (GOI) 

2. Export Oriented Units (EOU) (GOI) 

3. Target Plus Scheme (GOI) 

4. Capital Subsidy (GOI) 

5. Exemption of Export Credit from 

Interest Taxes (GOI) 

6. Loan Guarantees from the GOI 

7. Income Tax Exemption Scheme 

(Sections 10A & 10B) (GOI) 

8. State Sales Tax Incentive Programs 

other than SOG 

9. State of Maharashtra (SOM) 

Electricity Duty Exemption 

10. State of Maharashtra (SOM) Capital 

Incentive Scheme 

11. Octroi Refund Scheme- SOM 

12. Waiving of Interest on Loan by 

SICOM Limited (SOM) 

13. State Sales Tax Incentives–Section 

4–A of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act 

14. State Sales Tax Incentive of 

Uttaranchel 

15. State of Uttar Pradesh Capital 

Incentive 

16. SOG Infrastructure Assistance 

Schemes 

17. Capital Incentive Scheme of 

Uttaranchel 

Preliminary Results of Administrative 

Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for MTZ for the 

POR. We preliminarily determine the 

total countervailable subsidy to be 66.61 

percent ad valorem for MTZ. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash 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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 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 the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the 

cash deposit rate for the company listed 

above will be that established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is less than 0.50 percent, and 

therefore, de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 

which case the cash deposit rate will be 

zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not 

participating in this review, 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, or in 

the original countervailing duty 

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 manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be 20.40 

percent ad valorem, the all–others rate 

made effective by the LTFV 

investigation. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon publication of the final results 

of this review, the Department shall 

determine, and Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) shall assess, 

countervailing duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(2), the Department will 

instruct CBP to assess countervailing 

duties by applying the rates included in 

the final results of the review to the 

entered value of the merchandise. The 

Department intends to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after the date of publication of 

the final results of this review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification applies 

to entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by any company 

included in the final results of review 

for which the reviewed company did 

not know that the merchandise it sold 

to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, the Department will instruct 

CBP to liquidate un–reviewed entries at 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate if there is no rate 

for the intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See id. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this segment 

of the proceeding within five days of the 

public announcement of this notice. See 

19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties 

who wish to request a hearing, or to 

participate if one is requested, must 

submit a written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

Room 1870, within 30 days of the date 

of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Requests should contain: (1) 

the party’s name, address and telephone 

number; (2) the number of participants; 

and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit written 

comments in response to these 

preliminary results. Unless the time 

period is extended by the Department, 

case briefs are to be submitted within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, which 

must be limited to arguments raised in 

case briefs, are to be submitted no later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) a statement of the issues; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities cited. Further, we 

request that parties submitting written 

comments provide the Department with 

a diskette containing an electronic copy 

of the public version of such comments. 

Case and rebuttal briefs must be served 

on interested parties, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.303(f). 

Unless extended, the Department will 

issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any written briefs, not later than 120 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

These preliminary results are issued 

and published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: July 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18220 Filed 8–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XI67 

Amendment 2 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for U.S. West Coast 

Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45966 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare a 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) announces its intent to prepare 

a supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS) on Amendment 2 to 

the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. 

West Coast Fisheries for Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS FMP). An 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

was prepared for the HMS FMP and 

finalized in August 2003; however, the 

HMS FMP was only partially approved 

and the West Coast-based shallow-set 

longline (SSLL) fishery was not 

implemented. Amendment 2 would 

establish a management framework for a 

West Coast-based SSLL fishery outside 

of the West Coast Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ). The amendment is needed 

in order to provide high seas SSLL 

fishing opportunity for historic and/or 

current West Coast-based fishermen 

who have participated in fisheries 

targeting swordfish and landed 

swordfish in West Coast ports. NMFS 

provides this notice to describe the 

proposed action and possible 

alternatives; advise other Federal and 

State agencies, affected Tribes, and the 

public of our intent to prepare an EIS; 

announce the initiation of a public 

scoping period; and obtain suggestions 

and information on the scope of issues 

to be included in the EIS. 

DATES: Public scoping will also be 

conducted through regular meetings of 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

and its advisory bodies. The Pacific 

Fishery Management Council is 

scheduled to select a preliminary 

preferred alternative at their September 

2008 meeting and take final action to 

select a preferred alternative at their 

March 7–12, 2009 meeting in Seattle, 

Washington. The details of this and any 

other meetings related to this action will 

be announced in the Federal Register. 

Written, faxed or emailed comments 

must be received by 5 p.m., Pacific 

Daylight Time on September 8, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The public is encouraged to 

submit comments, on issues and 

alternatives, identified by RIN: 0648–

XI67 by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting 

comments.Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Mark Helvey, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, 

Sustainable Fisheries Division, 501 

West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long 

Beach, CA 90802–4213. 

• Fax: (562) 980–4047, Attention: 

Mark Helvey. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and may 

be posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (e.g., name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (please 

enter N/A in the required fields, if you 

wish to remain anonymous). Copies of 

the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. 

West Coast Fisheries for Highly 

Migratory Species and the 

Environmental Impact Statement are 

available on the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s website 

(www.pcouncil.org). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Helvey, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, 

Sustainable Fisheries Division, (562) 

980–4040. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The HMS FMP, prepared by the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council), would have authorized a 

West Coast-based SSLL fishery on the 

high seas outside the EEZ; however, on 

February 4, 2004 NMFS informed the 

Council that it had approved the HMS 

FMP with the exception of the provision 

that would have allowed SSLL fishing 

by West Coast-based vessels targeting 

swordfish east of 150° W. longitude. The 

disapproval was based on the Section 7 

consultation for the HMS FMP, which 

concluded that allowing SSLL fishing 

for swordfish with traditional gear and 

no effort limits east of 150° W. longitude 

would appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival and recovery in 

the wild of loggerhead sea turtles. 

Hawaii-permitted vessels may currently 

fish seaward of the U.S. West Coast EEZ 

and east of 150 W. longitude and land 

on the West Coast; however, they have 

not done so since 2004. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 

NMFS, if a FMP is disapproved in part 

or in whole, to advise the Council of 

actions it can take to address the 

disapproved FMP provisions. In a letter 

dated February 4, 2004, NMFS indicated 

to the Council that alternative gear and 

bait options (e.g., large circle hooks and 

mackerel bait) being tested in the U.S. 

Atlantic SSLL swordfish fishery had 

proven successful in significantly 

reducing sea turtle interactions and 

consequent injury to or mortality of sea 

turtles. NMFS advised the Council that 

possible use of alternative gear and bait 

requirements, effort limits, time/area 

limits, turtle take caps, or other 

measures that would limit sea turtle 

mortality to low levels by any future 

West Coast-based SSLL fishery might 

provide the necessary conservation and 

management measures to operate a 

fishery without jeopardizing the 

continued existence of ESA-listed sea 

turtles. Since that time, the alternate 

gear and bait options have also proven 

to be successful in the Hawaii-based 

SSLL swordfish fishery, as well as in 

foreign longline swordfish fisheries 

(e.g., Brazil, Italy, Ecuador and 

Uruguay), resulting in significant 

reductions in sea turtle interactions and 

mortalities while maintaining 

economically viable fisheries. As a 

result of these successful gear 

innovations, NMFS recommended at the 

April 2007 meeting that the Council revisit the disapproved portion of the 

HMS FMP. 

The SEIS will analyze the potential 

impacts of the following alternatives on 

the human environment, which were 

adopted by the Council at their March 

2008 meeting in Sacramento, California. 

Alternatives 

Alternative 1 is the status quo or no 

action alternative, which would 

continue to prohibit the use of SSLL 

gear to fish for or target swordfish on the 

high seas north of the equator by West 

Coast-based vessels, unless a vessel has 

both a Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council Pelagics limited 

entry (LE) permit and a Pacific Fishery 

Management Council HMS permit. 

Current regulations pursuant to the 

HMS FMP prohibit West Coast-based 

vessels from targeting swordfish with 

SSLL gear west of 150 W. longitude, and 

Endangered Species Act regulations 

prohibit West Coast-based vessels from 

targeting swordfish with SSLL gear east 

of 150 W. longitude. 

Alternative 2 would implement a 

West Coast-based LE permit program for 

SSLL fishing on the high seas seaward 

of the West Coast EEZ. It is estimated 

that the fishery would be economically 

viable with an effort level of 1 to 1 1/ 

2 million hooks. A maximum of 20 

permits would be issued with the final 

number based in part on an evaluation 

of what would be an economically 

viable fleet size for the proposed fishery. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45967 

There are several LE options for 

Alternative 2 to establish an initial pool 

of qualifiers; the criteria that may be 

involved include prior landings history 

for swordfish, years of fishing 

experience, recent participation in a 

swordfish fishery, and/or ownership of 

a drift gillnet permit. Two area closure 

options will also be considered under 

this alternative. The fishery would 

either be constrained to east of 150 W. 

longitude, or east of 140 W. longitude; 

analyses developed in conjunction with 

the HMS FMP suggested that loggerhead 

takes were lower the farther east fishing 

occurred up to the West Coast EEZ 

boundary. 

Alternative 3 would establish a 

management framework for a West 

Coast-based SSLL fishery seaward of the 

U.S. EEZ without a LE permit program. 

The management framework would 

contain the following provisions: (1) the 

fishery would be constrained to east of 

140° W. longitude; (2) owners of a 

Hawaii Pelagics LE permit would not 

qualify for the West Coast LE permit; 

and (3) sea turtle take mitigation 

measures (e.g., gear requirements, 100 

percent observer coverage, take caps) 

would be required. 

Protected Species Mitigation Measures 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would be subject 

to many of the same gear restrictions 

applicable to the Hawaii SSLL fishery, 

including the use of large circle hooks 

that are less likely to be deeply ingested 

by turtles as compared to traditional Jhooks, mackerel-type bait, and longer 

branch-lines to allow animals to surface 

and breathe after being hooked. In 

addition, U.S. fishermen would be 

required to have NMFS-approved safe 

handling gear on board to assist in 

boarding sea turtles, and de-hooking 

and releasing the gear from sea turtles, 

as well as training in resuscitation 

techniques to maximize the survival rate 

of sea turtles. Gear-related requirements 

would be harmonized with the Hawaii 

regulations as much as possible to ease 

compliance and minimize impacts to 

protected resources. In addition, any 

future West Coast-based SSLL fishery 

would be required to have 100 percent 

observer coverage. 

There would also be established take 

caps for ESA-listed loggerhead and 

leatherback sea turtles based on a formal 

ESA Section 7 consultation. The 

Council could recommend specific take 

caps as part of their preferred 

alternative, based on informal 

consultation with NMFS Protected 

Resources Division, or the Incidental 

Take Statement that would be part of 

the Biological Opinion produced as part 

of the formal Section 7 consultation. 

Take caps would be applied annually 

and the fishery would close 

immediately if they were reached. The 

fishery would reopen at the start of the 

next fishing year (April 1) with a new 

set of take caps in effect. 

To address potential resource 

concerns and/or fishery conflicts for 

species not designated and managed as 

protected species, additional 

management measures, such as 

maximum allowable harvest caps may 

be considered. This may include, but is 

not bound by or limited to, striped 

marlin, and commercially important 

tuna species that are HMS FMP 

management unit species (e.g., 

yellowfin, bigeye, bluefin, and albacore 

tuna) and which are being managed 

under the purview of conservation 

measures established by Regional 

Fishery Management Organizations. 

Other Documentation 

As required in Section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), NMFS will 

initiate a formal consultation with 

NMFS Protected Resources Division to 

determine if the proposed action is 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence and recovery of any 

endangered or threatened species, or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. NMFS 

also plans to consult with the National 

Marine Sanctuary Program in regards to 

potential impacts to Sanctuary 

resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service concerning potential impacts to 

endangered seabirds, and internally 

with the NMFS Habitat Conservation 

Division concerning essential fish 

habitat components. 

Additional Scoping Opportunities 

Public scoping has already occurred 

as part of the Council’s decision-making 

process and will continue through 

Council final action. All decisions 

during the Council process benefit from 

written and oral public comments 

delivered prior to or during the Council 

meetings. These public comments are 

considered integral to the scoping 

process and development of the SEIS. 

The Council is scheduled to choose a 

preliminary preferred alternative at their 

September 7–12, 2008 meeting in Boise, 

Idaho and take final action to select a 

preferred alternative at their March 7–

12, 2009 meeting in Seattle, 

Washington. Written comments 

submitted to the Council by August 20, 

2008 will be made available to the 

Council in advance briefing materials 

for their September meeting. 

Opportunities for oral public comment 

are also offered at Council meetings. For 

more information see the Council’s 

website (www.pcouncil.org). 

Request for Comments NMFS requests 

public comment on the Notice of Intent 

to prepare a Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Amendment 2 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for U.S. West Coast 

Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species. 

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

Dated: August 1, 2008. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–18106 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XJ40 

Endangered Species; File No. 13543 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources, 217 Ft. Johnson Rd., 

Charleston, SC 29412, has applied in 

due form for a permit to take loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia 

mydas), Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys 

kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys 

coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys 

imbricata) sea turtles for purposes of 

scientific research. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

September 8, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following offices: 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; and 

Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; 

phone (727)824–5312; fax (727)824–

5309. 

Written comments or requests for a 

public hearing on this application 

should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those 

individuals requesting a hearing should 

set forth the specific reasons why a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES