23730 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

our declining balance methodology. We

divided that portion of the benefit

allocated to the POR by NHCI’s total

sales of Canadian-manufactured

products. We preliminarily determine

the net subsidy provided by this

program to be 2.32 percent ad valorem.

II. Programs Preliminarily Found Not

To be Used

We preliminarily find that NHCI did

not apply for or receive benefits under

the following programs during the POR:

St. Lawrence River Environment

Technology Development Program

Program for Export Market Development

The Export Development Corporation

Canada-Que ́bec Subsidiary Agreement

on the Economic Development of the

Regions of Que ́bec

Opportunities to Stimulate Technology

Programs

Development Assistance Program

Industrial Feasibility Study Assistance

Program

Export Promotion Assistance Program

Creation of Scientific Jobs in Industries

Business Investment Assistance

Program

Business Financing Program

Research and Innovation Activities

Program

Export Assistance Program

Energy Technologies Development

Program

Transportation Research and

Development Assistance Program

Preliminary Results of Reviews

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.221(b)(4)(i) we calculated a subsidy

rate for NHCI, the sole producer/

exporter subject to these administrative

reviews. For the period January 1, 1996,

through December 31, 1996, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

to be 2.78 percent ad valorem. If the

final results of these reviews remain the

same as these preliminary results, the

Department intends to instruct Customs

to assess countervailing duties as

indicated above. The Department also

intends to instruct Customs to collect

cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties as indicated above

of the F.O.B. invoice price on all

shipments of the subject merchandise

from NHCI entered or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of the final

results of these administrative 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 section 777A(e)(2)(B) of

the Act. The requested reviews will

normally cover only those companies

specifically named. See 19 CFR

351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR

351.212(c), 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 Federal-Mogul

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, except Timminco

Limited (which was excluded from the

orders during the investigation), at the

most recent company-specific or

country-wide rate applicable to the

company. 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 the

Final Results of the Second

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews: Pure Magnesium and Alloy

Magnesium from Canada, 62 FR 48607

(September 16, 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, 1996, through

December 31, 1996, 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, except for Timminco

Limited (which was excluded from the

orders during the original investigation).

Public Comment

Parties to these proceedings may

request disclosure of the calculation

methodology and interested parties may

request a hearing not later than 30 days

after the date of publication of this

notice. Interested parties may submit

written arguments in case briefs on

these preliminary results within 30 days

of the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to arguments raised in

case briefs, may be submitted five days

after the time limit for filing the case

brief. Parties who submit an argument

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with the argument (1) a

statement of the issue, and (2) a brief

summary of the argument. Any hearing,

if requested, will be held two days after

the scheduled date for submission of

rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs and

rebuttal briefs must be served on

interested parties in accordance with 19

CFR 351.303(f).

Representatives of parties to the

proceeding may request disclosure of

proprietary information under

administrative protective order no later

than 10 days after the representative’s

client or employer becomes a party to

the proceeding, but in no event later

than the date the case briefs, under 19

CFR § 351.309(c)(ii), are due.

The Department will publish the final

results of these administrative reviews,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal

briefs or at a hearing.

These administrative review results

are published in accordance with

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

1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR 351.213.

Dated: April 23, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–11527 Filed 4–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–357–404]

Certain Textile Mill Products From

Argentina; Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Countervailing Duty

Review and Revocation of Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

changed circumstances countervailing

duty review and revocation of order.

SUMMARY: On April 2, 1996, the

Department of Commerce initiated

changed circumstances reviews of the

countervailing duty orders on Leather

from Argentina (55 FR 40212), Wool

from Argentina (48 FR 14423), Oil

Country Tubular Goods from Argentina

(49 FR 46564), and Carbon Steel ColdRolled Flat Products from Argentina (49

FR 18006). The Department of

Commerce initiated these reviews in
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 23731

order to determine whether, in light of

the decision in Ceramica Regiomontana

v. United States, 64 F.3d 1579, 1582

(Fed. Cir. 1995), the agency had the

authority to assess countervailing duties

on entries of merchandise covered by

these orders occurring after September

20, 1991—the date on which Argentina

became a ‘‘country under the

Agreement’’ within the meaning of

former section 303(a)(1) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Act) (19 U.S.C.

1303(a)(1) (1988; repealed 1994)). In the

final results of these reviews, the

Department of Commerce determined

that, based upon the ruling in the

Ceramica case, it lacked the authority to

assess countervailing duties on

unliquidated entries of merchandise

covered by the four Argentine orders

occurring on or after September 20,

1991. See Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Countervailing Duty

Reviews and Revocation and Amended

Revocation of Countervailing Duty

Orders, (62 FR 41361).

As a result of the Ceramica decision

and the changed circumstances reviews,

the Department of Commerce published

an initiation and preliminary results of

changed circumstances review of the

countervailing duty order on Certain

Textile Mill Products from Argentina (63

FR 7125; February 12, 1998) in which it

preliminarily determined that it does

not have the authority to assess

countervailing duties on unliquidated

entries of merchandise covered by the

order occurring on or after September

20, 1991. The notice also announced the

Department’s intention to revoke this

order with respect to all unliquidated

entries of subject merchandise entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption during the period May 18,

1992 through December 31, 1994. (The

order has been revoked on two previous

occasions. For a further discussion of

these revocations and the resulting

period affected by this determination,

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section below).

We invited interested parties to

comment on our preliminary results,

consideration of revocation, and intent

to revoke the order. We received no

comments. Accordingly, our final

results of changed circumstance review

remain the same as our preliminary

results and the Department is revoking

this order with respect to unliquidated

entries of subject merchandise entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption during the period May 18,

1992 through December 31, 1994.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 30, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne D’Alauro or Maria MacKay, Office

of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 19, 1997 (62

FR 27296).

History of the Countervailing Duty

Order on Textile Mill Products From

Argentina

The countervailing duty order on

Certain Textile Mill Products from

Argentina was issued on March 12, 1985

pursuant to former section 303(a)(1) of

the Act. Under former section 303, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) could assess (or ‘‘levy’’)

countervailing duties without an injury

determination on two types of imports:

(i) dutiable merchandise from countries

that were not signatories of the 1979

Subsidies Code or ‘‘substantially

equivalent’’ agreements (otherwise

known as ‘‘countries under the

Agreement’’), and (ii) duty-free

merchandise from countries that were

not signatories of the 1947 General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. See S.

Rep. 249, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. 103–06

(1979); H. Rep. No. 317, 96th Cong.; 1st

Sess. 43, 49–50 (1979). At the time this

order was issued, textile mill products

from Argentina were dutiable. Also at

that time, Argentina was not a ‘‘country

under the Agreement.’’ In short, U.S.

law did not require an injury

determination as a prerequisite to the

issuance of the order, and none was

provided.

On August 13, 1990, the Department

revoked the countervailing duty order

on Certain Textile Mill Products from

Argentina pursuant to section

355.25(d)(4)(iii) of the Department’s

then-current regulations. See Certain

Textile Mill Products from Argentina (55

FR 32940). The Department’s decision

to revoke the order was challenged

before the U.S. Court of International

Trade (CIT). On March 24, 1992, the CIT

reversed the Department’s decision,

holding that a domestic interested party

had properly objected to the

Department’s intent to revoke the

countervailing duty order. See Belton

Industries Inc. v. United States, CIT Slip

Op. 92–39 (March 24, 1992). In

accordance with that decision, on May

7, 1992, the CIT ordered the Department

to rescind the revocation and reinstate

the countervailing duty order on certain

textile mill products from Argentina.

Subsequently, two related appeals were

filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit, Belton Industries,

Inc. v. United States, et al., CAFC Nos.

92–1419,–1421, and –1451, and Belton

Industries, Inc. v. United States, et al.,

CAFC Nos. 92–1452, and –1483.

Because the United States withdrew its

appeal (No. 92–1421), and Argentina

was not a party to the appeals, the CIT

decision became final and binding with

respect to the order on certain textile

mill products from Argentina.

Consequently, the Department

rescinded its revocation of the

countervailing duty order on certain

textile mill products from Argentina and

reinstated the order on November 18,

1992, effective May 18, 1992. See

Certain Textile Mill Products from

Argentina; Notice of Final Court

Decision and Rescission of Revocation

of Countervailing Duty Order (57 FR

54368).

On March 1, 1994, the Department

again published in the Federal Register

(59 FR 9727) its intent to revoke the

countervailing duty order on certain

textile mill products from Argentina

pursuant to 19 CFR 355.25(d)(4)(i)(1994)

because no interested party had

requested an administrative review for

at least four consecutive review periods.

The Department received a timely

objection to the intended revocation

from the American Textile

Manufacturers Institute (ATMI) and its

member companies as well as the

Amalgamated Clothing and Textile

Workers Union (ACTWU).

The Department requested clarifying

information from ATMI and ACTWU

regarding the like products their

members produced. The Department

determined that ATMI and ACTWU did

not qualify as interested parties with

respect to one like product category,

‘‘Other Miscellaneous Categories.’’

Therefore, the Department revoked the

order with respect to that like product.

See Certain Textile Mill Products from

Argentina; Determination to Amend

Revocation, in Part, of the

Countervailing Duty Order (62 FR

41365).

As explained above, the

countervailing duty order on certain

textile mill products from Argentina

was issued pursuant to former section

303. In the URAA, which amended the

Act, section 303 was repealed partly

because the new Agreement on
23732 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures

prohibits the assessment of

countervailing duties on imports from a

member of the World Trade

Organization without an affirmative

injury determination. The URAA added

section 753 to the Act, which provided

domestic interested parties with an

opportunity to request an injury

investigation for orders that had been

issued pursuant to former section 303.

Because no domestic interested

parties exercised their right under

section 753(a) of the Act to request an

injury investigation on certain textile

mill products from Argentina, the U.S.

International Trade Commission made a

negative injury determination with

respect to this order, pursuant to section

753(b)(4) of the Act. As a result, the

Department revoked this countervailing

duty order, effective January 1, 1995,

pursuant to section 753(b)(3)(B) of the

Act. See Revocation of Countervailing

Duty Orders (60 FR 40,568).

The Ceramica Regiomontana v. United

States (Ceramica) Decision

On September 6, 1995, the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(Federal Circuit) held, in a case

involving imports of dutiable ceramic

tile from Mexico, that once Mexico

became a ‘‘country under the

Agreement’’ on April 23, 1985 pursuant

to the Understanding between the

United States and Mexico Regarding

Subsidies and Countervailing Duties

(the Mexican MOU), the Department

could not assess countervailing duties

on tile from that country under former

section 303(a)(1) of the Act. Ceramica,

64 F.3d at 1582. ‘‘After Mexico became

a ‘country under the Agreement,’ the

only provision under which ITA could

continue to impose countervailing

duties was section 1671.’’ Id. One of the

prerequisites to the assessment of

countervailing duties under 19 U.S.C.

§ 1671 (1988), according to the Federal

Circuit, is an affirmative injury

determination. See also Id. at § 1671e.

However, at the time the countervailing

duty order on ceramic tile was issued,

the requirement of an affirmative injury

determination under U.S. law was not

applicable. Therefore, the Federal

Circuit looked to see whether the statute

contained any transition rules when

Mexico became a country under the

Agreement which might provide the

order on tile with the required injury

test. Specifically, the court looked at

section 104(b) of the Trade Agreements

Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96–39 (July 20,

1979) (1979 Act).

Section 104(b) was designed to

provide an injury test for certain

countervailing duty orders issued under

former section 303 prior to the effective

date of the 1979 Act (which established

Title VII and, in particular, section 701

of the Act). However, in order to induce

other countries to accede to the 1979

Subsidies Code (or substantially

equivalent agreements), the window of

opportunity was intentionally limited.

In order to qualify (i) the exporting

nation had to be a country under the

Agreement (e.g., a signatory of the

Subsidies Code) by January 1, 1980, (ii)

the order had to be in existence on

January 1, 1980 (i.e., the effective date

of Title VII), and (iii) the exporting

country (or in some instances its

exporters) had to request the injury test

on or before January 2, 1983.

In Ceramica, the countervailing duty

order on ceramic tile was issued in 1982

and Mexico did not become a country

under the Agreement until April 23,

1985. Therefore, in the absence of an

injury test and the statutory means

(under section 104 or some other

provision) to provide an injury test, the

Federal Circuit held that the Department

could not assess countervailing duties

on ceramic tile and would have to

revoke the order effective April 23, 1985

(i.e., the date Mexico became a ‘‘country

under the Agreement’’). Ceramica, 64

F.3d at 1583.

On September 20, 1991, the United

States and Argentina signed the

Understanding Between the United

States of America and the Republic of

Argentina Regarding Subsidies and

Countervailing Duties (Argentine MOU).

Section III of that agreement contains

provisions substantially equivalent to

the provisions in the Mexican MOU that

were before the Federal Circuit in the

Ceramica case. Therefore, on April 2,

1996, the Department initiated changed

circumstances reviews of the

countervailing duty orders on Leather

from Argentina (55 FR 40212), Wool

from Argentina (48 FR 14423), Oil

Country Tubular Goods from Argentina

(49 FR 46564), and Carbon Steel ColdRolled Flat Products from Argentina (49

FR 18006). Each of these orders had

been issued without an injury

determination. The purpose of these

reviews was to determine whether the

Department had the authority, in light of

the Ceramica decision, to assess

countervailing duties on entries of

merchandise covered by the orders

occurring on or after September 20,

1991—the date on which Argentina

became a ‘‘country under the

Agreement’’ within the meaning of 19

U.S.C. § 1303(a)(1) (1988; repealed

1994). In the Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Countervailing Duty

Reviews and Revocation and Amended

Revocation of Countervailing Duty

Orders, (62 FR 41361) (Argentine

Changed Circumstances), published in

the Federal Register on August 1, 1997,

the Department determined that, based

upon the ruling in the Ceramica case, it

lacked the authority to assess

countervailing duties on entries of

merchandise covered by the four

Argentine orders occurring on or after

September 20, 1991.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of certain textile mill

products from Argentina. The

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTS) item numbers

covered by the order are identified in

Attachment A of this notice.

Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Countervailing Duty

Review and Revocation of the Order

In accordance with sections 751(b)(1)

and 751(d) of the Act, and sections

351.216 and 351.221(c)(3) of the

Department’s regulations, we initiated

this changed circumstances review on

February 12, 1998. Because we

determined that expedited action was

warranted, our preliminary results were

combined with the February 12, 1998

notice of initiation. Based upon our

analysis of the Ceramica decision and

the Argentine Changed Circumstances

reviews, our preliminary results

determined that the order on Certain

Textile Mill Products from Argentina

became entitled to an injury test as of

September 20, 1991—the date on which

Argentina became a ‘‘country under the

Agreement’’ within the meaning of 19

U.S.C. § 1303(a)(1) (1988; repealed

1994). Moreover, in the absence of an

injury determination or the statutory

authority to provide an injury test, we

further determined the Department does

not have the authority to assess

countervailing duties on unliquidated

entries of certain textile mill products

from Argentina occurring on or after

September 20, 1991. For these reasons,

we announced our intention to revoke

this order with respect to all

unliquidated entries of subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption

during the period May 18, 1992 (the

date on which the order was reinstated

pursuant to the Belton decision) through

December 31, 1994. The Department has

previously revoked the countervailing

duty order on textile mill products from

Argentina for all entries occurring on or

after January 1, 1995. See Revocation of

Countervailing Duty Orders (60 FR

40568).

Because we received no comments

following our preliminary results of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 23733

1Coverage limited to fabric, value not over

$19.84/kg.

2Coverage limited to yarn, not exceeding 68 nm.

changed circumstances review and

intent to revoke the order, our final

results remain unchanged. The

revocation of this order applies to all

unliquidated entries of subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption

during the period May 18, 1992 through

December 31, 1994.

Therefore, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to liquidate all

unliquidated entries of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after May 18, 1992 and on or before

December 31, 1994, without regard to

countervailing duties. We also will

instruct U.S. Customs to refund with

interest any estimated countervailing

duties collected with respect to those

unliquidated entries.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the

Act (19 U.S.C. section 1675(b)(1)).

Dated: April 21, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix A—C–357–404 HTS List for

Certain Textile Mill Products From

Argentina

HTS Number

5111.1170; 5111.1960;1 5111.2090;

5111.3090; 5111.9090; 5112.1120;

5112.1990; 5112.2030; 5112.3030;

5112.9090; 5205.1110; 5205.1210;

5205.1310; 5205.1410; 5205.2400;2

5205.3100; 5205.3200; 5205.3300;

5207.1000; 5207.9000; 5407.9105;

5407.9205; 5407.9305; 5407.9405;

5515.1305; 5515.1310; 5801.3600;

6302.600010; 6302.600020;

6302.910005; 6302.910050;

6305.2000; 6305.9000

[FR Doc. 98–11430 Filed 4–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 042098E]

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 11–15, 1998.

ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held

at the Sandestin Beach Hilton, 4000

Sandestin Boulevard South, Destin, FL;

telephone: 850–267–9500.

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,

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; telephone: (813) 228–2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Council

May 13

8:30 a.m.—Convene.

8:45 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.—Receive public

testimony on: (1) Mackerel Total

Allocable Catch (TAC) (2) Draft

Mackerel Amendment 9; and, (3) Draft

Reef Fish Amendment 16B.

Draft Mackerel Amendment 9

contains the following alternatives: (1)

Possible changes to the fishing year for

Gulf group king mackerel; (2) Possible

prohibitions of sale of Gulf mackerel

caught under the recreational allocation;

(3) Possible reallocations of TAC for the

commercial fishery for Gulf group king

mackerel in the Eastern Zone; (4)

Possible reallocations of TAC for Gulf

group king mackerel between the

recreational and commercial sectors to

70 percent recreational and 30 percent

commercial; (5) Possible establishment

of two subdivisions of TAC for the

commercial, hook-and-line allocation of

Gulf group king mackerel by area for the

Florida west coast; (6) Possible

subdivisions of TAC for commercial

Gulf group king mackerel in the Western

Zone (Alabama through Texas) by area,

season, or a combination of area and

season; (7) Possible trip limits for

vessels fishing for Gulf group king

mackerel in the Western Zone; (8)

Possible additional restrictions on the

use of net gear to harvest Gulf group

king mackerel off the Florida west coast;

including a phase-out, a moratorium on

additional net endorsements with

requirements for continuing existing net

endorsements, restrictions on the

transferability of net endorsements, and

restriction of the use of nets to primarily

the waters off Monroe and Collier

Counties; (9) Possible increase in the

minimum size limit for Gulf group king

mackerel to 24 or 26 inches fork length;

(10) Possible re-establishment of an

annual allocation or a TAC percentage

of Gulf group Spanish mackerel for the

purse seine fishery with consideration

of trip limits and area restrictions; (11)

Possible retention and sale of cut-off

(damaged) legal-sized king and Spanish

mackerel within established trip limits.

Draft Reef Fish Amendment 16B

contains the following alternatives: (1)

Possible establishment of a slot limit, of

14 inches and 20 (or 22) inches fork

length, for banded rudderfish and lesser

amberjack; and possible prohibition on

the sale of minor amberjack species that

are smaller than 36 inches fork length;

(2) Possible 5–fish bag limit for lesser

amberjack and banded rudderfish; (3)

Possible removal from the fishery

management plan (FMP) or management

of sand perch, dwarf sand perch, Queen

triggerfish, and hogfish; (4) Possible

minimum size limits of 20 inches for

scamp and yellowmouth grouper; 16

inches for mutton snapper; and 12

inches for blackfin snapper, cubera

snapper, dog snapper, mahogany

snapper, schoolmaster, silk snapper,

mutton snapper, queen snapper, gray

triggerfish, and hogfish; (5) Possible

inclusion of the 5–fish red snapper bag

limit as part of the 10–snapper aggregate

snapper limit, and a 5–fish bag limit for

hogfish, and 2 fish per vessel of cubera

snapper over 30 inches total length; (6)

Possible establishment of a 1–fish bag

limit and commercial quotas for

speckled hind and warsaw grouper, or

a prohibition on harvest of these

species.

3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.—Receive a

report of the Mackerel Management

Committee.

5:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.—(CLOSED

SESSION) Receive reports of the

Advisory Panel Selection Committee

and Marine Reserves Committee.

May 14 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.—

Continue report of the Mackerel

Management Committee.

10:00 a.m. - 3:15 p.m.—Receive a

report of the Reef Fish Management

Committee.

3:15 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.—Receive a

report of the Shrimp Management

Committee.

3:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.—Receive a

presentation on the Barataria/

Terrebonne Estuary Program.

4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.—Receive a

report of the Habitat Protection

Committee.

May 15

8:30 a.m. - 9:15 a.m.—Continue report

of the Habitat Protection Committee.

9:15 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.—Receive a

report of the AP Selection Committee.

9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.—Receive a

report of the Marine Reserves

Committee.