Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-04-06 · Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agriculture · Notices

Notices. Notice of Request for Nominations

19,375 words·~88 min read·/register/2006/04/06/06-3300·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Notice of Request for Nominations for the Agricultural Air Quality Task Force AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agriculture. ACTION: Notice of Request for Nominations. SUMMARY: The Secretary of Agriculture intends to renew the Agricultural Air Quality Task Force and requests nominations for qualified persons to serve as members. DATES: Nominations must be received in writing (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) by May 19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send written nominations to: Chief, USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service, Post Office Box 2890, Washington DC 20013-2890. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Diane Gelburd, Designated Federal Official, USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service, telephone:
(202)720-2587, fax:
(202)720-2646, e-mail: *Diane.Gelburd@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AAQTF Purpose As required by section 391 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)shall establish a committee to address agricultural air quality issues. The Agricultural Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF) shall advise the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the role of the Secretary, for providing oversight and coordination related to agricultural air quality. The requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA)apply to AAQTF. AAQTF will advise the Secretary of Agriculture on: 1. Research efforts related to agricultural air quality; 2. The extent to which agricultural activities contribute to air pollution; 3. Cost-effective ways in which the agricultural industry can improve air quality; 4. Coordination of research on agricultural air quality issues to avoid duplication and to ensure data quality and sound interpretation of data; and 5. The respect to the role of the Secretary for providing oversight and coordination related to agricultural air quality. AAQTF Membership AAQTF will be made up of United States citizens and be composed of: 1. Individuals with scientific knowledge of agricultural air quality issues. Candidates in this category will be considered based upon their published research and editorial record, having provided testimony to congressional bodies, directing research efforts, receipt of national professional awards, and other applicable special experience or abilities. At least one atmospheric scientist will specifically be selected from this category of applicant. 2. Experts in the production of food and fiber. Candidates in this category will be considered based upon their practical experience in farming/ranching, participation in professional associations, service as an elected official, service on other agricultural action committees, having provided expert testimony to congressional bodies, and other applicable special experience or abilities. 3. Representatives from agricultural interest groups and industry. Candidates in this category will be considered based upon their professional industry standing, academic training, owning a producing farm/ranch, service on industry-wide committees, relevant publications/speeches, and other applicable special experience or abilities. 4. Representatives of other interests, including human health, environmental advocacy, and air quality regulators. Candidates in this category will be considered based upon their academic training, air-quality or agriculturally-related professional service, knowledge of farm/ranch operations, professional memberships, air-quality or agriculturally-related publications/speeches, and other applicable special experience or abilities. AAQTF nominations must be in writing and must provide the appropriate background documents required by the Department of Agriculture
(USDA)policy, including Form AD-755 (which is available online at the URL listed below). Previous nominees and current AAQTF members who wish to be reappointed must completely update their nominations, including all supporting materials, and provide a new background disclosure form (AD-755) to reaffirm their candidacy. Service as an AAQTF member shall not constitute employment by, or the holding of an office of, the United States for the purpose of any Federal law. An AAQTF member shall serve for a term of 2 years. AAQTF members shall receive no compensation from NRCS for their service as AAQTF members, except as described below. While away from home or regular place of business as a member of the AAQTF, the member will be eligible for travel expenses paid by NRCS, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at the same rate as a person employed intermittently in the government service under section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code. Additional information about the AAQTF, as well as Form AD-755, may be found online at *http://www.airquality.nrcs.usda.gov/AAQTF/.* Submitting Nominations Nominations should be typed and should include the following: 1. A brief summary of no more than two pages explaining the nominee's qualifications to serve on the AAQTF. 2. Resume, including publication list. Please do not send actual publications. 3. A completed copy of Form AD-755. 4. Letters of support. Nominations should be sent to the Chief of NRCS at the address listed above and postmarked no later than May 19, 2006. Equal Opportunity Statement To ensure that recommendations of AAQTF take unto account the needs of underserved and diverse communities served by USDA, membership shall include to the extent practicable, individuals representing minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. Signed in Washington, DC on March 28, 2006. Bruce I. Knight, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service. [FR Doc. E6-4895 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-816] Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate From Germany: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Stephanie Moore
(202)482-5973 or
(202)482-3692, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. Background On September 28, 2005, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Germany, covering the period August 1, 2004, to July 31, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). The preliminary results of this review are currently due no later than May 3, 2006. Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination in an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested. Consistent with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the 245-day period to 365 days if it is not practicable to complete the review within a 245-day period. We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable. A number of complex issues concerning the respondent company's intercorporate relationships have arisen in the case. As a result, the Department needs additional time to gather supplemental responses from the company and its affiliate participating in the review. In order to obtain and analyze the necessary additional information, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 120 days to August 31, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than August 31, 2006. The final results continue to be due 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 30, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5029 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sochieta Moth, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone;
(202)482-0168. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 23, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“The Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on malleable iron pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China covering the period December 2, 2003, through November 30, 2004. *See Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 76234 (December 23, 2005) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The final results of review are currently due no later than April 22, 2006. Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and section 351.213(h)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department shall issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the antidumping duty order. The Act further provides that the Department shall issue the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published in the **Federal Register** . However, if the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations allow the Department to extend the 245-day period to 365 days and the 120-day period to 180 days. We find that it is not practicable to complete the final results in this administrative review by April 22, 2006, because additional time is needed to analyze a significant amount of information submitted in response to supplemental questionnaires that were issued subsequent to the *Preliminary Results* . Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of these final results by 60 days until no later than Wednesday, June 21, 2006, which is 180 days from the date on which the notice of the *Preliminary Results* was published. Briefing and Hearing Request Schedule In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department stated that it would notify all parties of the briefing and hearing request schedule at a later date. Any interested party may submit case briefs and/or written comments, and request a hearing, within 20 days of the date of publication of this notice. The deadline for interested parties to submit rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, is 27 days after the publication of this notice of extension. A hearing, if requested, will be held at the main Commerce Department building at a time and location to be determined. Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in these proceedings are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 30, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5030 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-809] Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received requests for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (flanges) from India issued on February 9, 1994. *See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India* , 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994). In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(d) (2005), we are initiating antidumping new shipper reviews of Kunj Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (Kunj), Micro Forge (India), Ltd. (Micro), Pradeep Metals Limited (Pradeep), and Rollwell Forge, Ltd. (Rollwell), exporters and producers that requested new shipper reviews. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Michael Heaney, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-2924,
(202)482-4475, or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d), the Department received timely requests submitted by Kunj, Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell (all producers and exporters of flanges) for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on flanges from India. See February 28, 2006, letters from Kunj, Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell to the Secretary of Commerce requesting new shipper reviews. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b), Kunj, Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell certified that they are both exporters and producers of the subject merchandise, that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of the investigation
(POI)(July 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992), and that since the investigation was initiated, they have not been affiliated with any producer or exporter who exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. They also submitted documentation establishing the date on which they first shipped the subject merchandise to the United States, the volume of those shipments, and the date of their first sales to unaffiliated customers in the United States. They also certified they had no shipments to the United States during the period subsequent to their first shipments. Initiation of Review In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214(d) of the Department's regulations, we find that the requests submitted by Kunj, Micro, Pradeep, Rollwell meet the threshold requirements for initiation of a new shipper review. Accordingly, we are initiating new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on flanges from India manufactured and exported by Kunj, Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell. These reviews cover the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. We intend to issue the preliminary results of these reviews no later than 180 days after the date on which these reviews are initiated, and the final results within 90 days after the date on which we issue the preliminary results. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise from Kunj, Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell, and allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until completion of the reviews, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the merchandise produced and exported by Kunj, Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because each of the four companies certified that it both produces and exports the subject merchandise, the sales of which are the basis for these new shipper review requests, we will permit the bonding privilege only for those entries of subject merchandise for which the company is both the manufacturer and the exporter. Interested parties may submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and this notice are issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and sections 351.214(d) and 351.221(c)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Dated: March 31, 2006. Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5027 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-475-819] Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of the Ninth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke Order, in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. We preliminarily find that the countervailing duty rates during the period of review for all of the producers/exporters under review are either zero or *de minimis* . *See* the “Preliminary Results of Review” section, below. We are also preliminarily revoking the order with respect to Pasta Lensi S.r.l., in accordance with section 751(d)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.222(c)(3). *See* the “Partial Revocation” section, below. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results ( *see* the “Public Comment” section of this notice). DATES: *Effective Date:* April 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Twyman or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3534 and
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 24, 1996, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a countervailing duty order on certain pasta (“pasta” or “subject merchandise”) from Italy. *See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta From Italy* , 61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996). On July 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of this countervailing duty order for calendar year 2004, the period of review (“POR”). *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). On July 28, 2005, we received a request for review from Pastificio Laporta S.a.s (“Laporta”). On July 29, 2005, we received requests for reviews from the following four producers/exporters of subject merchandise: Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.l. (“Pallante”), Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a. (“Corticella”)/Pasta Combattenti S.p.a. (“Combattenti”) (collectively, “Corticella/Combattenti”), Atar S.r.l. (“Atar”), and Moline e Pastificio Tomasello S.r.l. (“Tomasello”). On August 1, 2005, we received a request for review and a request for revocation from Pasta Lensi S.r.l. (“Pasta Lensi”). 1 ( *See* the “Partial Revocation” section, below.) In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of the review on August 29, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005). 1 Pasta Lensi is the successor-in-interest to IAPC Italia S.r.1. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews: Certain Pasta from Italy* , 68 FR 41553 (July 14, 2003). On August 31, 2005, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to the Commission of the European Union, the Government of Italy (“GOI”), Pallante, Corticella/Combattenti, Pasta Lensi, Tomasello, Laporta, and Atar. We received all responses to our questionnaire in October 2005. We issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents in November 2005, and we received responses to our supplemental questionnaires in November and December 2005. On September 15, 2005, Laporta withdrew its request for review. On September 29, 2005, Tomasello withdrew its request for review. On October 25, 2005, Pallante withdrew its request for review. As discussed in the “Partial Rescission” section, below, we have rescinded this administrative review for Laporta, Tomasello, and Pallante. Period of Review The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or POR, is January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of the order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International Services, Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as of August 4, 2004, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from this order. *See* memorandum from Eric B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner, dated August 4, 2004, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as of March 13, 2003, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale
(ICEA)are also excluded from this order. *See* memorandum from Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, dated February 28, 2006, entitled “Recognition of Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale
(ICEA)as a Public Authority for Certifying Organic Pasta from Italy” which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in Room B-099 of the main Department building. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.9095 and 1902.19.20 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“ *HTSUS* ”). Although the *HTSUS* subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. Scope Rulings The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:
(1)On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See* Memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, dated August 25, 1997, which is on file in the CRU.
(2)On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling finding that multipacks consisting of six one-pound packages of pasta that are shrink-wrapped into a single package are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See* Letter from Susan H. Kuhbach to Barbara P. Sidari, dated July 30, 1998, which is available in the CRU.
(3)On October 23, 1997, the petitioners filed an application requesting that the Department initiate an anti-circumvention investigation of Barilla S.r.l. (“Barilla”), an Italian producer and exporter of pasta. The Department initiated the investigation on December 8, 1997. *See Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry on Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta From Italy* , 62 FR 65673 (December 15, 1997). On October 5, 1998, the Department issued its final determination that, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) effective January 1, 1995 (“the Act”), circumvention of the antidumping order on pasta from Italy was occurring by reason of exports of bulk pasta from Italy produced by Barilla which subsequently were repackaged in the United States into packages of five pounds or less for sale in the United States. *See Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 63 FR 54672 (October 13, 1998).
(4)On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable industry tolerances is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999, we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See* Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated May 24, 1999, which is available in the CRU.
(5)On April 27, 2000, the Department self-initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.'s importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes circumvention with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(b). *See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000). On September 19, 2003, we published an affirmative finding of the anti-circumvention inquiry. *See Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determinations of Circumvention of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 68 FR 54888 (September 19, 2003). Partial Revocation On August 1, 2005, Pasta Lensi requested revocation of the countervailing duty order as it pertains to its sales. Under section 751(d)(1) of the Act, the Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” a countervailing duty order upon completion of a review. Although Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is set forth under 19 CFR 351.222. Under 19 CFR 351.222(c)(3)(i), in determining whether to revoke a countervailing duty order in part, the Secretary will consider:
(1)Whether one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have not applied for or received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise for a period of at least five consecutive years;
(2)whether, for any exporter or producer that the Secretary previously has determined to have received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise, the exporter or producer agrees in writing to their immediate reinstatement in the order, if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, has received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise; and
(3)whether the continued application of the countervailing duty order is otherwise necessary to offset subsidization. A request for revocation of an order in part must address these four elements, per 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii). The company requesting the revocation must do so in writing and submit the following statements with the request:
(1)The company's certification that it has not applied for or received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise for a period of at least five consecutive years;
(2)the company's certification that it will not apply for or receive any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise from any program the Secretary has found countervailable;
(3)the company's certification that during each of the consecutive years, the company sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities; and
(4)the company's agreement in writing to their immediate reinstatement in the order, if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, has received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise. We preliminarily find that the request from Pasta Lensi meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. Pasta Lensi's revocation request includes the necessary certifications in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii). With regard to the criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii)(A), our preliminary results show that Pasta Lensi did not receive countervailable subsidies during the POR and, therefore, the net subsidy rate for Pasta Lensi is zero. *See* “Preliminary Results of Review” section, below. In addition, Pasta Lensi had zero net subsidy rates in the four previous administrative reviews in which it was involved. *See Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Eighth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 37084 (June 28, 2005), covering the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003; *Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 70657 (December 7, 2004), covering the period January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002; *Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Sixth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 48599 (August 14, 2003), covering the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001; and *Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Fifth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 52452 (August 12, 2002), covering the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. Based on our examination of the data submitted by Pasta Lensi, we preliminarily find that Pasta Lensi qualifies for revocation of the order pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(c)(3) and 351.222(e)(2)(iii). We also preliminarily find that the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by Pasta Lensi should be revoked. If these preliminary findings are affirmed in our final results, we will revoke the order, in part, with respect to pasta from Italy produced and exported by Pasta Lensi. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for pasta produced and exported by Pasta Lensi that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2005, and will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to refund any cash deposits for such entries. Partial Rescission The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. On September 15, 2005, Laporta withdrew its request for review. On September 29, 2005, Tomasello withdrew its request for review. On October 25, 2005, Pallante withdrew its request for review. All parties submitted their withdrawal requests within the 90-day deadline. No other party requested a review of Pallante's, Laporta's, or Tomasello's sales. Therefore, because these withdrawal requests were timely filed, and because no other interested party requested that they be reviewed, we rescinded this review with respect to Pallante, Tomasello, and Laporta in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). *See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 59723 (October 13, 2005); *Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 61788 (October 26, 2005); and *Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 69515 (November 16, 2005). We have instructed CBP to liquidate any entries from Pallante, Laporta, and Tomasello during the POR and to assess countervailing duties at the rate that was applied at the time of entry. Subsidies Valuation Information Allocation Period Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b), non-recurring subsidies are allocated over a period corresponding to the AUL of the renewable physical assets used to produce the subject merchandise. The Department's regulations create a rebuttable presumption that the AUL will be taken from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (“IRS Tables”). *See* 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2). For pasta, the IRS Tables prescribe an AUL of 12 years. None of the responding companies or interested parties objected to this allocation period. Therefore, we have used the 12-year allocation period for all respondents. Attribution of Subsidies Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6), the Department will attribute subsidies received by certain companies to the combined sales of those companies. Based on our review of the responses, we preliminarily find that “cross-ownership” exists with respect to certain companies, as described below, and we have attributed subsidies accordingly: *Pasta Lensi:* Pasta Lensi is an Italian producer and exporter of pasta. As further discussed in the April 3, 2006, proprietary memorandum entitled “Pasta Lensi S.r.l.—Attribution Issues,” which is on file in the Department's CRU, Pasta Lensi has reported that IAPC Leasing S.r.l., another company owned by the parent company of Pasta Lensi, did not receive any benefits under the programs being examined. Therefore, there are no benefits to this company that require attribution. Moreover, IAPC Leasing S.r.l. does not produce subject merchandise. Thus, we are attributing any subsidies received to Pasta Lensi's sales only. *Corticella/Combattenti:* Corticella/Combattenti is an Italian producer and exporter of pasta. As further discussed in the April 3, 2006, memorandum entitled “Attribution Issues: Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a. and Pasta Combattenti S.p.a.,” which is on file in the Department's CRU, Corticella/ Combattent has reported that affiliates Certosa, CLC, and the parent company Euricom, did not receive any benefits under the programs being examined. Therefore, there are no benefits to these companies that require attribution. Thus, we are attributing any subsidies received to the combined sales of Corticella and Combattenti. *Atar:* Atar has reported that it has no affiliates or cross-ownership. Thus, we are attributing any subsidies received to Atar's sales only. Discount Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)(B), we used the national average cost of long-term, fixed-rate loans as a discount rate for allocating non-recurring benefits over time because no company for which we need such discount rates took out any loans in the years in which the government agreed to provide the subsidies in question. Consistent with past practice in this proceeding, for years prior to 1995, we used the Bank of Italy reference rate adjusted upward to reflect the mark-up an Italian commercial bank would charge a corporate customer. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial Recision of the Eighth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 17971 (April 8, 2005) (decision unchanged in the final results, *Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Eighth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 37084 (June 28, 2005)). For benefits received in 1995 and later, we used the Italian Bankers' Association interest rate, increased by the average spread charged by banks on loans to commercial customers plus an amount for bank charges. *See* Memorandum the File, “Calculations for the Preliminary Results for Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a. and Pasta Combattenti S.p.a.” (April 3, 2006) (“ *Corticella/Combattenti Calculation Memorandum* ”) Analysis of Programs I. Program Preliminarily Determined to be Countervailable A. Export Marketing Grants Under Law 304/90 Under Law 304/90, the GOI provided grants to promote the sale of Italian food and agricultural products in foreign markets. The grants were given for pilot projects aimed at developing links and integrating marketing efforts between Italian food producers and foreign distributors. The emphasis was on assisting small and medium-sized enterprises. Corticella received a grant under this program in 1993 to assist it in establishing a sales office and network in the United States. No other respondent covered by this review received benefits under this program during the POR. In the *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta from Italy* , 61 FR 30288 (June 14, 1996) (“ *Pasta Investigation* ”), the Department determined that these export marketing grants confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. They are a direct transfer of funds from the GOI bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. *See* Sections 771(5)(D)(i) and
(E)of the Act. Also, these grants were found to be specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because their receipt was contingent upon export performance. In this review, neither the GOI nor the responding companies have provided new information that would warrant reconsideration of our determination that these grants confer a countervailable subsidy. Also in the *Pasta Investigation* , the Department treated these export marketing grants as non-recurring. No new information has been placed on the record of this review that would cause us to depart from this treatment. Because the amount of the grant that was approved by the GOI exceeded 0.5 percent of Corticella's exports to the United States in the year of approval, we used the grant methodology described in 19 CFR 351.524(d) to allocate the benefit over the AUL. We divided the benefit attributable to the POR by the value of the companies' total exports to the United States in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from these Law 304/90 export marketing grants to be 0.12 percent ad valorem for Corticella/Combattenti. *See* the *Corticella/Combattenti Calculation Memorandum.* B. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions—Sgravi (Article 44 of Law 448/01) Italian law allows companies, particularly those located in the *Mezzogiorno* region (southern Italy), to use a variety of exemptions from and reductions (sgravi) of payroll contributions that employers make to the Italian social security system for health care benefits, pensions, etc. The sgravi benefits are regulated by a complex set of laws and regulations, and are sometimes linked to conditions such as creating more jobs. We have found in past segments of this proceeding that the benefits under some of these laws ( *e.g.* , Laws 183/76 and 449/97) are available only to companies located in the *Mezzogiorno* and other disadvantaged regions. Other laws ( *e.g.* , Laws 407/90 and 863/84) provide benefits to companies all over Italy, but the level of benefits is higher for companies in the south than for companies in other parts of the country. The law identified as having provided countervailable sgravi benefits during the POR is the following: Article 44 of Law 448/01. In the instant review, no party in this proceeding challenged our past determinations in the *Pasta Investigation* and subsequent reviews that sgravi benefits were countervailable for companies located within the *Mezzogiorno* region. Additionally, no new information or evidence of changed circumstances was received that would warrant reconsideration of these past determinations. Article 44 of Law 448/01 is provided to encourage employment in the *Mezzogiorno* region by reducing the amount of the portion of social security contributions paid by the employer on behalf of the employee. Effectively, the government undertakes to pay a portion of the social security amount on behalf of the employer. This benefit is provided for three years after the hire of a new employee in the *Mezzogiorno* region. To receive the benefit, companies must increase their number of employees from that in existence as of December 31, 2001. This program was terminated on January 1, 2003. Atar is located in the *Mezzogiorno* region and made use of this program. We find that this program confers a countervailable subsidy because the GOI has foregone tax revenues that are otherwise due pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, which provided a benefit to Atar in the amount of the revenue forgone, pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of the Act. This program is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because the program is limited to the *Mezzogiorno* region of Italy. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from Article 44 of Law 448/01 to be 0.20 percent ad valorem for Atar. *See* Memorandum the File, “Calculations for the Preliminary Results for Atar S.r.l.” (April 3, 2006). II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Countervailable A. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions—Sgravi (Law 407/90, Law 223/91, Law 337/90, and Article 120 of Law 388/00) Other various laws identified as having also provided sgravi benefits during the POR are the following: Law 407/90 (Pasta Lensi), Law 223/91 (Pasta Lensi and Combattenti), Law 337/90 (Corticella), and Article 120 of Law 388/00 (Pasta Lensi, Corticella, Combattenti, and Atar). In the instant review, no party in this proceeding challenged our past determinations in the *Pasta Investigation* and subsequent reviews that sgravi benefits were not countervailable for companies located outside of the *Mezzogiorno* region because the program was generally available throughout Italy at a lower rate and therefore, not specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. Moreover, under such circumstances, there is no benefit under 19 CFR 351.503(d)(1). Additionally, no new information or evidence of changed circumstances was received that would warrant reconsideration of our past determinations. Therefore, because Pasta Lensi and Corticella/Combattenti are not located in the *Mezzogiorno* region, we preliminarily find that these companies did not receive countervailable subsidies under Law 407/90, Law 223/91, and Law 337/90 during the POR. Unlike these other sgravi programs, Article 120 of Law 388/00 (fiscalizzazione program) is a nationwide sgravi program that provides an equivalent level of deductions throughout Italy and is not specific to the *Mezzogiorno* region or to the pasta industry pursuant to section 771(5A) of the Act. Article 120 of Law 388/00 provides a deduction of certain social security payments related to health care or insurance. The government takes over a minimal amount of the payments for social contributions which are owed to the Instituto Nazionale Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”). Therefore, we preliminarily find that Article 120 of Law 388/00 is not a countervailable subsidy because the subsidy is not specific. Accordingly, we determine that Atar, Pasta Lensi, and Corticella/Combattenti did not receive countervailable subsidies under this program during the POR. B. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Fairs and Exhibition Grants The Brescia Chamber of Commerce provided grants to small and medium-sized enterprises, artisan and agricultural enterprises, and pools and cooperatives in the province of Brescia for their direct participation in fairs and exhibitions abroad during calendar year 2004. Pasta Lensi was the only respondent in this proceeding that reported receiving grants from the Brescia Chamber of Commerce. Specifically, Pasta Lensi reported receiving a grant in 2004 for a fair in Germany. However, because there is no indication that the Brescia Chamber of Commerce constitutes a “public entity” under section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the Act, or that the Brescia Chamber of Commerce was entrusted or directed by the GOI to provide the grant, we preliminarily determine that this grant does not confer a countervailable subsidy. C. Tremonti Law 383/01 (Formerly Law 357/94 and 489/94) Tremonti Law 383/01 allowed for a deduction from taxable income of 50 percent of the difference between investments in new plant and equipment and the average investment rate for the preceding five years. Pasta Lensi has stated that one of its affiliates, IAPC Leasing, claimed a deduction for tax benefits under this law on its 2003 tax return but that no benefits were received in the POR because IAPC Leasing was in a tax loss position. Regardless of whether there was a benefit during the POR, we find that there is no evidence on the record that indicates that any subsidies under this program are specific pursuant to section 771(5A) of the Act. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this program did not confer a countervailable subsidy. III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Not Be Used We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that the producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise under review did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs during the POR: A. *Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92* B. *Industrial Development Loans Under Law 64/86* C. *European Regional Development Fund Grants* D. *Law 236/93 Training Grants* E. *Law 1329/65 Interest Contributions (Sabatini Law) (Formerly Lump-Sum Interest Payment Under the Sabatini Law for Companies in Southern Italy)* F. *Development Grants Under Law 30 of 1984* G. *Law 908/55 Fondo di Rotazione Iniziative Economiche (Revolving Fund for Economic Initiatives) Loans* H. *Industrial Development Grants Under Law 64/86* I. *Law 317/91 Benefits for Innovative Investments* J. *Brescia Chamber of Commerce Training Grants* K. *Ministerial Decree 87/02* L. *Law 10/91 Grants to Fund Energy Conservation* M. *Export Restitution Payments* N. *Export Credits Under Law 227/77* O. *Capital Grants Under Law 675/77* P. *Retraining Grants Under Law 675/77* Q. *Interest Contributions on Bank Loans Under Law 675/77* R. *Preferential Financing for Export Promotion Under Law 394/81* S. *Urban Redevelopment Under Law 181* T. *Industrial Development Grants under Law 183/76* U. *Interest Subsidies Under Law 598/94* V. *Duty-Free Import Rights* W. *European Social Fund Grants* X. *Law 113/86 Training Grants* Y. *European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund* Z. *Law 341/95 Interest Contributions on Debt Consolidation Loans (Formerly Debt Consolidation Law 341/95)* AA. *Interest Grants Financed by IRI Bonds* BB. *Grant Received Pursuant to the Community Initiative Concerning the Preparation of Enterprises for the Single Market (PRISMA)* IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Have Been Terminated We examined the following programs at verification and preliminarily determine they have been terminated prior to the POR and that there will be no remaining subsidy benefits from these programs after this POR. A. *Regional Tax Exemptions Under IRAP* B. *VAT Reductions Under Laws 64/86 and 675/55* C. *Corporate Income Tax (IRPEG) Exemptions* D. *Remission of Taxes on Export Credit Insurance Under Article 33 of Law 227/77* E. *Export Marketing Grants Under Law 304/90* F. *Tremonti Law 383/01* Verification In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(2)(ii) and 351.307(b)(1)(iii), we verified information submitted by the GOI for Pasta Lensi, Atar, Corticella, and Combattenti in Rome, Italy on February 13-15, 2006. *See* “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the Government of Italy in the 9th Administrative Review,” dated March 31, 2006. We verified information submitted by Pasta Lensi in Verolanuova, Italy on February 17 and 20, 2006. *See* “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Pasta Lensi S.r.l. in the 9th Administrative Review,” dated March 31, 2006. Preliminary Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for Atar and Corticella/Combattenti. Pasta Lensi had no countervailable subsidies. For the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, we preliminarily find the net subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be those specified in the chart shown below: Producer/exporter Net subsidy rate Pasta Lensi S.r.l 0.00 percent. Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a./Pasta Combattenti S.p.a 0.12 percent ( *de minimis* ). Atar S.r.l 0.20 percent ( *de minimis* ). If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, because the countervailing duty rates for all of the above-noted companies are less than 0.5 percent and, consequently are either zero or *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries during the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, without regard to countervailing duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The Department will issue appropriate instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of this review. For all other companies that were not reviewed (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are excluded from the order), the Department has directed CBP to assess countervailing duties on all entries between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004, at the rates in effect at the time of entry. The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties. For the companies noted above (except Pasta Lensi) the cash deposit rate is zero because each company's rate is *de minimis* . If the revocation in part becomes final for Pasta Lensi, suspension of liquidation will cease and, consequently, no duties will be collected. For all non-reviewed firms (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are excluded from the order), we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or “all others” rate applicable to the company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date of filing the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit briefs in this proceeding should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary results, in accordance with section 751(a)(3) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: March 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5031 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-489-502] Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipe from Turkey for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. For information on the net subsidy rate for the reviewed company, see the “Preliminary Results of Review” section, infra. If the final results remain the same as the preliminary results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess countervailing duties as detailed in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section, *infra* . Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. ( *See* the “Public Comment” section, *infra* ). EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 1986, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the CVD order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube products from Turkey. *See Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey* , 51 FR 7984 (March 7, 1986) (“ *Turkey Pipe Order* ”). On March 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this CVD order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 9918 (March 1, 2005). On March 31, 2005, we received a timely request for review from the Borusan Group (“Borusan”), a Turkish producer and exporter of subject merchandise. On April 22, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipe from Turkey, covering the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 20862 (April 22, 2005). On June 13, 2005, the Department issued a questionnaire to Borusan and the Government of the Republic of Turkey (“GOT”); we received their questionnaire responses on August 22, 2005. On October 26, 2005, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Borusan and the GOT. We received the supplemental questionnaire response from Borusan on November 25, 2005, and from the GOT on November 28, 2005. On November 7, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an extension of the deadline for the preliminary results. *See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 67455 (November 7, 2005). On February 15 through February 23, 2006, we conducted verification in Ankara, Turkey, of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOT, and in Istanbul, Turkey, of the questionnaire responses submitted by Borusan. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. The only company subject to this review is Borusan. During the period of review (“the POR”), Borusan was comprised of Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari A.S. (“BBBF”), Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi T.A.S. (“MB”), Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (“BMB”), and Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (“Istikbal”). This review covers fourteen programs. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from Turkey. These products are currently provided for under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) as item numbers 7306.30.10, 7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Period of Review The period for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. Company History As noted above, Borusan is composed of BBBF, MB, BMB, and Istikbal. During the POR, BBBF produced the subject merchandise, which was first sold to Istikbal, an export sales company, and then resold to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. MB ceased production of the subject merchandise in November 2003, and a year later, was merged into BBBF on November 30, 2004. BBBF was subsequently renamed Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. ( *i.e.* , BMB) on December 13, 2004, and continued to produce the subject merchandise and export the merchandise through Istikbal. Prior to the November 2004 merger, BBBF and MB were affiliated through their parent company, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Yatirim Holding A.S. (“BMBYH”). BMBYH, a holding company, is majority-owned by Borusan Holding A.S. 1 Post merger and company name change, BMB continued to be owned by BMBYH. During the POR, Istikbal was majority-owned by Borusan Holding A.S. 2 1 Mannesmannrohren-Werke A.G., a publicly traded company in Germany, also has ownership in BMBYH. 2 Borusan Holding A.S. is owned by the family of Asim Kocabiyik, the company's founder. Subsidies Valuation Information Benchmark Interest Rates To determine whether government-provided loans under review conferred a benefit, the Department uses, where possible, company-specific interest rates for comparable commercial loans. See 19 CFR 351.505(a). Borusan provided the interest rates it paid on short-term Turkish Lira (“TL”)-denominated and foreign currency (“FX”)-denominated commercial loans. We preliminarily find that the company-specific FX-denominated short-term loans are comparable to the export credit FX-denominated loans against which Borusan paid interest during the POR. However, Borusan's short-term TL-denominated commercial loans, outstanding during the POR, were revolving, open account loans and not comparable to the maturity of the export financing loans that Borusan received from the Export Credit Bank of Turkey (“Export Bank”). Where no company-specific benchmark interest rates are available, the Department's regulations direct us to use a national average interest rate as the benchmark. *See* 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii). According to the GOT, however, there is no official national average short-term interest rate available. *See* the March 31, 2006, Memorandum to the File concerning the Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by the Government of the Republic of Turkey (“GOT Verification Report”) at 3. 3 Therefore, we have calculated the benchmark interest rate for short-term TL-denominated loans based on short-term interest rate data for 2004, as reported by *The Economist* . Specifically, from issues of *The Economist* , we sourced a short-term interest rate for each quarter of 2004. 4 We then simple averaged those quarterly rates to calculate an annual short-term interest rate for Turkey. *See* the March 31, 2006, Memorandum to the File concerning the Calculations for the Preliminary Results of the Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey (“Preliminary Calculations”). This methodology is consistent with the Department's practice. *See e.g.* , *Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 65 FR 49230 (August 11, 2000) (“ *1998 Pipe Final* ”); and *Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Turkey; Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination* , 67 FR 55815 (August 30, 2002) (“ *Wire Rod* ”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at 3-4 (“ *Wire Rod Memorandum* ”). 3 A public version of the verification report is available on the public file in the Department's Central Records Unit (room B-099). 4 In each issue, *The Economist* reports short-term interest date on a percentage per annum basis for select countries. Further, it is the Department's practice to normally compare effective interest rates rather than nominal rates in making the loan comparison. See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 65362 (November 25, 1998) (“ *Preamble* ”). “Effective” interest rates are intended to take account of the actual cost of the loan, including the amount of any fees, commissions, compensating balances, government charges, or penalties paid in addition to the “nominal” interest rate. The short-term TL interest rates sourced from *The Economist* do not include commissions or fees paid to commercial banks, *i.e.* , they are nominal rates. *See Wire Rod Memorandum* at 4. For Pre-Shipment Export Credits, discussed *infra* , commercial banks, through which the loans are extended, can add a maximum 2.0 percent to the interest rate for TL-denominated loan as their commission. *See* GOT Verification Report at 4. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we compared the benchmark TL interest rate, inclusive of the 2.0 percent commission, to the interest rate that Borusan was charged on the Pre-Shipment Export Credit TL-denominated loans to make the comparison on an effective interest rate basis. 5 Where a company-specific benchmark interest rate was used 6 to determine whether government-provided export loans under review conferred a benefit, that comparison of interest rates was also made on an effective basis. 5 Borusan also received TL-denominated export credit loans under the Foreign Trade Companies Short-Term Export Credit program and the Pre-Export Credit program ( *see infra* ). However, those loans are extended directly by Turkey's Export Bank and, therefore, not subject to a intermediary bank commission charge. 6 For these preliminary results, we used a company-specific benchmark interest rate to conduct the loan comparison for loans denominated in a foreign currency. Analysis of Programs I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable A. *Deduction from Taxable Income for Export Revenue* Addendum 4108 of Article 40 of the Income Tax Law allows companies that operate internationally to claim, directly on their corporate income tax returns, a tax deduction equal to 0.5 percent of the foreign exchange revenue earned from exports and other international activities. 7 The income tax deduction for export earnings may either be taken as a lump sum or be used to cover certain undocumented expenses, which were incurred through international activities, that would otherwise be non-deductible for tax purposes ( *e.g.* , expenses paid in cash, such as for lodging, gasoline, and food). 7 These actions include construction, repair, installation, and transportation activities that occur abroad. Consistent with *Wire Rod* , we preliminarily find that this tax deduction is a countervailable subsidy. See *Wire Rod Memorandum* at 4; *see also Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube and Welded Carbon Steel Line Pipe from Turkey; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 63 FR 18885, 18886-87 (April 16, 1998) (“ *1996 Pipe Final* ”). The deduction provides a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) because it represents revenue forgone by the GOT. The deduction provides a benefit in the amount of the tax savings to the company pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of the Act. It is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because its receipt is contingent upon export performance. In this review, no new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted to warrant reconsideration of the Department's prior findings. During the POR, BBBF, MB, and Istikbal filed separate corporate income tax returns for tax year 2003. However, only Istikbal utilized the deduction for export earnings on its 2003 tax return. BBBF and MB did not have direct exports of merchandise during 2003 and, therefore, could not claim the deduction for export earnings on their respective 2003 tax returns. The Department typically treats a tax deduction as a recurring benefit in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1). To calculate the countervailable subsidy rate for this program, we calculated the tax savings realized by Istikbal in 2004, as a result of the deduction for export earnings. We then divided that benefit by Borusan's total export sales for 2004. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy for this program to be 0.09 percent *ad valorem* . B. *Pre-Shipment Export Credits* Turkey's Export Bank provides short-term pre-shipment export loans to exporters through intermediary commercial banks. 8 This loan program is designed to support export-related firms. Loans are made to exporters who commit to export within a specified period of time. Generally, loans are extended for a period of up to 180 days, and cover up to 100 percent of the FOB export value. These loans are denominated in either TL or FX. The interest rates charged on these pre-shipment loans are set by the Export Bank. In several previous determinations, the Department found this program to be countervailable because receipt of the loans is contingent upon export performance and the interest rates paid on these loans are less than the amount the recipient would pay on comparable commercial loans. *See 1998 Pipe Final* , 65 FR 49231; and *Certain Pasta from Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 64398 (December 13, 2001) (“ *1999 Pasta from Turkey* ”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at 3-4 (“ *1999 Pasta Memorandum* ”). 8 As discussed in the “Benchmark Interest Rates” section, *supra* , the intermediary bank can add a commission fee rate to the loan program's interest rate, which is set by the Export Bank. We also found that the pre-shipment loan program is an untied export loan program because the loans are not specifically tied to a particular destination at the time of approval and the borrower only has to show that the export commitment was satisfied ( *i.e.* , exports amounting to the FOB value of the credit) during the credit period to close out the loan with the bank. *See e.g.* , *Wire Rod Memorandum* at 5. In this review, no new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted to warrant reconsideration of the Department's prior findings. *See* GOT Verification Report at 3. During the POR, BBBF paid interest against pre-shipment export loans denominated in both TL and FX. MB paid interest against pre-shipment TL-denominated loans. Pursuant to section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, a benefit shall be treated as conferred “in the case of a loan, if there is a difference between the amount the recipient of the loan pays on the loan and the amount the recipient would pay on a comparable commercial loan that the recipient could actually obtain on the market.” To calculate the amount of interest the recipient would pay on a comparable TL-denominated commercial loan, in absence of a company-specific interest rate on comparable TL-denominated commercial loans, we have used, as the benchmark rate, a simple average of the 2004 quarterly short-term interest rates for Turkey as reported by *The Economist* . *See* “Benchmark Interest Rates” section, *supra* , for more information. To calculate the amount of interest the recipient would pay on a comparable FX-denominated commercial loan, we have used a company-specific interest rate as the benchmark rate. *See Id* . Using these benchmark rates, we continue to find the pre-shipment export loans countervailable because the interest rate charged is less than the rate for comparable commercial loans that the company could actually obtain on the market. Therefore, the loans constitute a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds from the GOT, under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. A benefit exists under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act in the amount of the difference between the payments of interest that BBBF and MB made on their loans during the POR and the payments the each company would have made on comparable commercial loans. The program is also specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because receipt of the loans is contingent upon export performance. To determine the benefit, we calculated the countervailable subsidy as the difference between the actual interest paid on the pre-shipment loans during the POR and the interest that would have been paid using the benchmark interest rates. We then added the benefits and divided the sum by Borusan's total export sales for 2004. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy under this program to be 0.07 percent ad valorem. C. *Foreign Trade Companies Short-Term Export Credits* 9 9 This program was previously known as “Export Credit Through the Foreign Trade Corporate Companies Rediscount Credit Facility” or “Foreign Trade Corporate Companies Credit Facility.” The Foreign Trade Company (“FTC”) loan program was implemented to assist large export trading companies with their export financing needs. This program is specifically designed to benefit Foreign Trade Corporate Companies (“FTCC”) and Sectoral Foreign Trade Companies (“SFTC”). 10 An FTCC is a company whose export performance was at least U.S. $75 million in the previous year. For eligible companies, the Export Bank will provide short-term export credits based on their past export performance. Under this credit program, the Export Bank extends short-term export credits directly to exporters in TL and FX, up to 100 percent of FOB export commitment. The program's interest rates are set by the Export Bank and the maturity of the loans is usually 180 days. To qualify for a FTC loan, in addition to submitting the necessary application documents, a company must provide a bank letter of guarantee, equivalent to the loan's principal and interest amount. 10 A grouping of small- and medium-sized companies that operate together in a similar sector. Istikbal acquired FTCC status in April 2003 and was the only Borusan company to receive FTC credits. During the POR, Istikbal paid interest against FTC loans denominated in both TL and FX. Consistent with previous determinations, we preliminarily find that these loans confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. *See e.g.* , *Wire Rod Memorandum* at 6-7. The loans constitute a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds from the GOT, under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. A benefit exists under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act in the amount of the difference between the payments of interest that Istikbal made on its loans during the POR and the payments the company would have made on comparable commercial loans. The program is also specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because receipt of the loans is contingent upon export performance. Further, like the pre-shipment loans, the FTC loans are not tied to a particular export destination. *See* GOT Verification Report at 3. Therefore, we have treated this program as an untied export loan program which renders it countervailable regardless of whether the loans were used for exports to the United States. *See Wire Rod Memorandum* at 6-7. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we have calculated the benefit as the difference between the payments of interest that Istikbal made on its FTC loans during the POR and the payments the company would have made on comparable commercial loans. In accordance with section 771(6)(A) of the Act, we subtracted from the benefit amount the fees which Istikbal paid to commercial banks for the required letters of guarantee. We then divided the resulting benefit by Borusan's total export value for 2004. On this basis, we preliminarily find that the countervailable subsidy for this program is 0.09 percent *ad valorem* . 11 11 *See* “Benchmark Interest Rates,” *supra* , (discussing the benchmark rates used in these preliminary results). D. *Pre-Export Credits* 12 12 This loan program was formerly known as ”Past Performance Related Export Credits.“ This program is similar to the FTC credit program described above; however, companies classified as either FTC or SFTC are not eligible for pre-export loans. Under the pre-export credit program, a company's past export performance is considered in evaluating a company's eligibility and establishing the company's credit limit. Like FTC loans, the Export Bank directly extends to companies pre-export loans, which are denominated in either TL or FX and have a maturity of 180 days. 13 To quality for a pre-export loan, in addition to submitting the necessary application documents, a company must provide a bank letter of guarantee, equivalent to the loan's principal and interest amount. During the POR, BBBF paid interest against pre-export loans that were denominated in both TL and FX. 13 The Export Bank also sets the interest rates for this export loan program. Consistent with previous determinations, we preliminarily find that these loans confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. *See e.g.* , *Wire Rod Memorandum* at 7-8. The loans constitute a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds from the GOT, under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. A benefit exists under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act in the amount of the difference between the payments of interest that BBBF made on its loans during the POR and the payments the company would have made on comparable commercial loans. The program is also specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because receipt of the loans is contingent upon export performance. Further, these loans are not tied to a particular export destination. *See* GOT Verification Report at 3. Therefore, we have treated this program as an untied export loan program which renders it countervailable regardless of whether the loans were used for exports to the United States. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we have calculated the benefit as the difference between the payments of interest that BBBF made on its pre-export loans during the POR and the payments the company would have made on comparable commercial loans. 14 In accordance with section 771(6)(A) of the Act, we subtracted from the benefit amount the fees which BBBF paid to commercial banks for the required letters of guarantee. We then divided the resulting benefit by Borusan's total export value for 2004. On this basis, we preliminarily find that the countervailable subsidy for this program is 0.02 percent *ad valorem* . 14 *See* “Benchmark Interest Rates,” *supra* (discussing the benchmark rates used in these preliminary results). II. Program Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Countervailable A. *Investment Allowance Under Article 19 of Law 4842* In *Wire Rod* , the Department investigated investment allowances provided for under Investment Incentive Certificates, which were granted under the General Incentives Encouragement Program (“GIEP”), and found certain investment allowances to be countervailable and others to be non-countervailable. 15 15 Specifically, in *Wire Rod* , we determined that because the criteria governing the minimum investment allowance ( *i.e.* , 40 percent) were identical to those of the GIEP itself, our analysis of the minimum investment allowance was identical to that for the GIEP, which we found to be non-countervailable. Therefore, because we found that the GIEP is not countervailable, we also found that the minimum investment allowance is not countervailable. *See Wire Rod Memorandum* at 14-16. Investment allowances greater than 40 percent were found to be countervailable. *See Id* . at 8-11. During the POR of the instant review, investment allowances were no longer provided for under the GIEP via an Investment Incentive Certificate. With Article 19 of Law 4842, published on April 24, 2003, the obligation to have an Investment Incentive Certificate to benefit from an investment allowance was abolished and the ability to claim an investment allowance on a corporate income tax return was made available to all taxpayers at a uniform rate. 16 Specifically, by the provisions of Article 19, taxpayers without regard to region or sector, and without any requirement of an Investment Incentive Certificate, are eligible to claim an investment allowance at the rate of 40 percent. There is no special application or approval process to claim and receive the investment allowance. The amount of the investment allowance is indicated on a company's tax return. The amount of the deduction is 40 percent of the costs of depreciable economic assets that are purchased or produced for use in the company's operations. *See* GOT Verification Report at 8. 16 Expenses for investments covered by an Investment Incentive Certificate continued to be subject to the previous investment allowance rules if the application for the certificate was made before the effective date of Law 4842. BBBF and MB both took an Article 19 investment allowance deduction on their respective 2003 tax returns that were filed during the POR. We analyzed whether this investment allowance is *de jure* specific, within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D) of the Act. As discussed above, Article 19 of Law 4842 does not limit access to the investment allowance deduction to an enterprise, industry, group of industries, or region. Eligibility for the investment allowance is automatic as a company calculates the 40 percent deduction of its depreciable economic assets and reports that amount on its income tax return. A company's annual income tax return is subject to a statutory tax audit. The conditions under which a company can enjoy the investment allowance are delineated in the law and use of the investment allowance is clearly indicated in the income tax return and tax audit report. At verification, we confirmed BBBF's and MB's usage of the investment allowance provided for under Article 19, through an examination of each company's 2003 annual income tax return and accompanied 2003 tax audit report. *See* the March 31, 2006, Memorandum to the File concerning the Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by the Borusan Group (“Borusan Verification Report”) at 11-12. 17 17 A public version of the verification report is available on the public file in the Department's Central Records Unit (room B-099). Based on our analysis of Article 19 of Law 4842 and the process by which companies realize the investment allowance, we preliminarily determine that the investment allowance under Article 19 of Law 4842 is not specific under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act and, therefore, is not countervailable. B. *Investment Allowance Under Investment Incentive Certificate* In *Wire Rod* , the Department determined that the threshold requirement for eligibility of any GIEP benefit is the receipt of an Investment Incentive Certificate, which specifies the benefit programs ( *e.g.* , investment allowance and customs duty exemption) a certificate holder can receive. The Department further determined that particular investment allowances extended under the GIEP are countervailable and others are non-countervailable. *See Wire Rod Memorandum* at 8-11 and 14-16. During the POR, MB had an Investment Incentive Certificate, received prior to the effective date of Article 19 of Law 4842, that provided for a 40 percent investment allowance, which the company claimed on its 2003 income tax return filed during the POR. MB was eligible for a 40 percent investment allowance because of its location in a developed region. 18 18 Companies located in a normal region received a 60 percent allowance and those in a priority region received a 100 percent allowance. The different regions were determined by the GOT. In *Wire Rod* , we determined that because the criteria governing the minimum investment allowance ( *i.e.* , 40 percent for a developed region) were identical to those of the GIEP itself, our analysis of the minimum investment allowance was identical to that for the GIEP, which we found to be non-countervailable. Therefore, because we found that the GIEP was not countervailable, we also found the minimum investment allowance to be not countervailable. *See Id* . at 14-16. In this review, no new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted to warrant reconsideration of the Department's prior findings. III. Programs Preliminary Determined To Not Confer Countervailable Benefits A. *Export Credit Insurance* Through this program, exporters can obtain export credit insurance from Turkey's Export Bank. These are one-year blanket insurance policies that cover up to 90 percent of losses incurred due to political risk ( *e.g.* , loss resulting from a war) and commercial risk ( *e.g.* , the insolvency of the buyer). The insurance provided under this program is post-shipment insurance because the Export Bank becomes liable only if the loss occurs on or after the date of shipment. Beginning in February 1997, use of the export credit insurance program became voluntary for borrowers under the pre-shipment export financing programs. During the POR, Istikbal had in place an export credit insurance program. We verified that the company did not submit an insurance claim or receive a reimbursement under the program in 2004. We also verified with the Export Bank that for 2002, 2003, and 2004, the premiums paid for the export credit insurance and other income generated by the program exceeded the insurance claims paid to participating companies and operating costs of the program. *See* GOT Verification Report at 5. On this basis, consistent with *Wire Rod* and *1999 Pasta Final* , and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.520(a)(1), we preliminarily find that the export credit insurance program did not confer countervailable benefits during the POR. *See Wire Rod Memorandum* at 18; and *1999 Pasta Memorandum* at 7. B. *Inward Processing Certificate Exemption* Under the Inward Processing Certificate (“IPC”) 19 program, companies are exempt from paying customs duties and value added taxes (“VAT”) on raw material imports to be used in the production of exported goods. Companies may choose whether to be exempted from the applicable duties and taxes or have them refunded upon export. Under the exemption system, companies provide a letter of guarantee that is returned to the companies upon fulfillment of the committed export. 19 The IPC program is governed by the following GOT provisions: Customs Code No. 4458 (Articles 80, 108, 111, 115, and 121), IPC Council of Ministers' Decree No. 2005/8391, and Communique of IPR No. Export 2005/1. To participate in this program, a company must hold an IPC, which lists the amount of raw materials to be imported and the amount of product to be exported. The input/output usage rates listed on the IPC are set by the GOT working in conjunction with Turkey's Exporter Associations, which are quasi-governmental organizations whose leadership are subject to GOT approval. The input/output usage rates vary by product and industry and are determined using data from capacity reports submitted by companies that apply for IPCs. The input/output usage rates are subject to periodic review and verification by the GOT. In the case of the pipe and tube industry, the input/output usage rates were last modified in June 2001. *See* Borusan Verification Report at 12-13. The GOT uses the input/output usage rates to ensure that a company's expected export quantities are sufficient to cover the quantity of inputs imported duty-free under the program. An IPC specifies the maximum quantity of inputs that can be imported under the program. Further, under the IPC program, the value of imported inputs may not exceed the value of the exported products. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.519(a)(1)(ii), a benefit exists to the extent that the exemption extends to inputs that are not consumed in the production of the exported product, making normal allowances for waste, or if the exemption covers charges other than imported charges that are imposed on the input. In regard to the VAT exemption granted under this program, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.517(a), in the case of the exemption upon export of indirect taxes, a benefit exists to the extent that the Department determines that the amount exempted exceeds the amount levied with respect to the production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption. During the POR, Borusan used IPCs to receive duty and VAT exemptions on certain imported inputs used in the production of steel pipes and tubes. Borusan did not receive any duty or VAT refunds under the program during the POR. There is no indication that Borusan used the imported inputs for any other product besides those exported or that the amount of exempted inputs imported under the program were excessive. At verification, we learned that the GOT sets the waste/usage rate for each imported raw material. 20 The usage ratios are developed on an industry and product basis. These rates are used to determine the amount of each raw material input required to produce a given unit of exported product. In setting the rates, the GOT relies on company capacity reports and conducts on-site inspections of production facilities. The GOT periodically reviews the waste/usage rates. A company may request that a raw material ratio be modified if there have been improvements in productivity and efficiency of the company's facilities. At verification, we confirmed, through examination of the company's production records, that the waste rate established by the GOT, in June 2001, reflects Borusan's actual production experience. *See* Borusan Verification Report at 12-14 and GOT Verification Report at 10-11. 20 Specifically, the Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade (“UFT”) works in conjunction with various exporter associations (quasi-governmental organizations comprised of industry officials) and the Chamber of Industries (independent non-governmental organization) to set the waste/loss ratios. For example, the Chamber of Industries issues the company-specific capacity reports, which a company must submit to the UFT for consideration of a certificate. To obtain a capacity report, a company first establishes a production plan and then requests an inspection of its production facilities to confirm production capability, efficiency, annual consumption and production capacity, etc. Each capacity report has an expiration date and an updated capacity report is generated every three or four years. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that the tax and duty exemptions that Borusan received on imported inputs under the IPC program did not confer countervailable benefits as Borusan consumed the imported inputs in the production of the exported product, making normal allowance for waste. We further preliminarily find that the VAT exemption did not confer countervailable benefits on Borusan because the exemption does not exceed the amount levied with respect to the production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption. During our verification meeting with the GOT, we learned of a previously unreported form of IPC, *i.e.* , a D3 license, in which the GOT provides exemptions and refunds on quantities of imported inputs that are incorporated into products sold on the domestic market. Using records available at the GOT's UFT, we identified Borusan's D3 licenses that were open during the POR. *See* GOT Verification Report at 12. During Borusan's verification, we examined each of the D3 licenses. We confirmed that Borusan did not use the licenses to import any raw materials during the POR. We also confirmed that, under the D3 certificates, Borusan was exempt from paying import duties and VAT by providing a bank letter of guarantee. *See* Borusan Verification Report at 13-14. As the issuance of a D3 license is not based on exportation, we preliminarily find that this aspect of the IPC program is not an export program but rather falls under 19 CFR 351.510. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.510(a)(1), in the case of a program, other than an export program, that provides for the full or partial exemption or remission of an indirect tax or an import charge, a benefit exists to the extent that the taxes or import charges paid by a firm are less than the taxes the firm would have paid in the absence of the program. Further, under 19 CFR 351.510(b)(1), the Department normally will consider the benefit as having been received at the time the recipient firm otherwise would be required to pay the indirect tax or import charge. Because Borusan did not import any goods under a D3 certificate during the POR, we preliminarily determine that this aspect of the IPC program was not used. We will, however, continue to examine the use of D3 licenses under the IPC program in future CVD proceedings involving Turkish producers/exporters. IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Not Be Used We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that Borusan did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs during the POR: A. VAT Support Program (Incentive Premium on Domestically Obtained Goods) 21 21 Although we found this program to be terminated in *Wire Rod* , residual payments for purchases made prior to the program's termination were permitted. *See Wire Rod Memorandum* at 11. B. Post-Shipment Export Loans C. Pre-Shipment Rediscount Loans D. Subsidized Turkish Lira Credit Facilities E. Subsidized Credit for Proportion of Fixed Expenditures F. Regional Subsidies. Preliminary Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated a subsidy rate for Borusan for calendar year 2004. We preliminarily determine that the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 0.27 percent *ad valorem* , which is *de minimis* , pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c). If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review, to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all shipments of subject merchandise produced by Borusan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. The Department will also instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of the subject merchandise produced by Borusan, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. We will also instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. If such a review has not been conducted, the rate established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to the statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments is applicable. *See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 53 FR 9791 (March 25, 1988). These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)A statement of the issues, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, that is, 37 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. 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. *See* 19 CFR 351.305(b)(3). The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs. This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1), 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: March 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5028 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 031406G] Endangered Species; File No. 1527 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that John A. Musick, Ph.D., Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Gloucester Point, VA 23062, has been issued a permit to take loggerhead ( *Caretta caretta* ), Kemp's ridley ( *Lepidochelys kempii* ), leatherback ( *Dermochelys coriacea* ), green ( *Chelonia mydas* ), and hawksbill ( *Eretmochelys imbricata* ) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9328; fax (978)281-9394. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Opay or Kate Swails, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 24, 2005, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 49577) that a request for a scientific research permit to take loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles had been submitted by the applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). The research will take place in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, and the local Virginia and Maryland tributaries to the Bay. Researchers will capture up to 100 loggerhead, 30 Kemp's ridley, 10 leatherback, 10 green, and 5 hawksbill sea turtles each year over the course of the permit. The turtles will be captured by relocation trawlers as part of dredging activities authorized under separate permits, or incidentally captured in pound net fisheries and then turned over to the applicant. Turtles will be measured, weighed, blood sampled, flipper tagged, and PIT tagged. A subset of these animals will have satellite and/or radio/sonic transmitters attached to their carapace. Twenty loggerhead sea turtles will be used in a whelk gear bycatch reduction study. The research will identify sea turtle's relative abundance over time; detect changes in size and age composition; monitor and document movement and migration patterns; and study sea turtle interactions with whelk pot gear. The permit is issued for 5 years.Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit
(1)was applied for in good faith,
(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species, and
(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: March 31, 2006. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-5025 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 011306B] Endangered Species; File No. 1552 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida 33149 has been issued a permit to take green ( *Chelonia mydas* ), loggerhead ( *Caretta caretta* ), Kemp's ridley ( *Lepidochelys kempii* ), hawksbill ( *Eretmochelys imbricata* ), leatherback ( *Dermochelys coriacea* ), olive ridley ( *Lepidochelys olivacea* ), and unidentified hardshell sea turtles for purposes of scientific research. ADDRESSES: The permit 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; Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Opay or Amy Hapeman, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 19, 2005 notice was published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 60796) that a request for a scientific research permit to take green, loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, leatherback, olive ridley, and unidentified hardshell sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). The SEFSC will handle, measure, weigh, photograph, flipper tag, passive integrated transponder tag, skin biopsy, and release green, loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, leatherback, olive ridley, and unidentified hardshell (combination of green, loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, olive ridley, or hybrids that would not be able to be identified at the time of capture) sea turtles. In addition, a limited number of turtle carcasses (including tissues or parts from them) will be collected annually from the fisheries or activities for which incidental lethal take has been previously authorized. The applicant will sample turtles captured incidentally during other activities including the shark gillnet fishery, longline fisheries, the shrimp trawl fishery, and surveys during oil/gas platform removal. The capture will be authorized by the incidental take statements of the biological opinions or section 10(a)(1)(B) permits that cover these activities. The research will provide data on the turtles that interact with these activities and provide data useful to better understanding turtle migration, habitat use, genetics, and population dynamics. The information will be used to develop, implement, and evaluate conservation recovery efforts for sea turtles. The research will take place in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and their tributaries. The permit is issued for 5 years. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit
(1)Was applied for in good faith,
(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species, and
(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: March 31, 2006. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-5026 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 032106D] Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) its Enforcement Committee and its Administrative Committee will hold meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held on April 26-27, 2006. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at Ponce Hilton Hotel, 1150 Caribe Avenue, Ponce, Puerto Rico 00716. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1920, telephone:
(787)766-5926. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will convene on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and the Administrative Committee will meet from 5:15 p.m. to 6 p.m., on that same day. The Enforcement Committee will meet on April 27, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. The Council will reconvene on Thursday, April 27, 2006, from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m., approximately. The Council will hold its 120th regular public meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda: April 26, 2006 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. •Call to Order •Adoption of Agenda •Consideration of 120th Council Meeting Verbatim Transcription •Executive Director's Report •ICAAT Presentation •Models for Ecosystem Based Management Approach - Monica Valle •Revised Regulations SFA, PR, USVI 5:15 p.m. - 6 p.m. Administrative Committee Meeting -AP/SSC/HAP Membership -Budget 2006, 2007 -Other Business April 27, 2006 9 a.m. - 12 noon Enforcement Committee Meeting 1:30 p.m. - 5 p.m. •Enforcement Reports -Puerto Rico -U.S. Virgin Islands -NOAA -U.S. Coast Guard •Administrative Committee Recommendations - April 26. 2006 •Meetings attended by Council members and staff •Other Business •Next Council Meeting The meetings are open to the public, and will be conducted in English. However, simultaneous translation (English-Spanish) will be provided. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/or other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-2577; telephone:
(787)766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: April 3, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-4978 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 032106E] Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's Advisory Panel (AP), Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)and Habitat Advisory Panel (HAP), will hold meetings. DATES: The SSC, HAP and AP meetings will be held on April 25, 2006, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: All meetings will be held at the Ponce Hilton Hotel, 1150 Caribe Avenue, Ponce, Puerto Rico. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-2577; telephone:
(787)766-5926. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The AP, SSC and HAP will meet to discuss the items contained in the following agendas: SSC/HAP Meeting -Call to order -Models for Ecosystem Based Management Approach - Monica Valle -Jurisdiction Separation for Assessment Purposes in the Caribbean -Limited Entry - Scientific Issues in the U.S. Caribbean -Other Business AP Meeting -Call to Order -Revised SFA, PR, USVI Regulations -Issues with closed areas/season -Limited Entry Update -Other Business The meetings are open to the public, and will be conducted in English. However, simultaneous interpretation (Spanish-English) will be available during the AP meeting. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-2577; telephone:
(787)766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: April 3, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-4979 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 033006F] Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Tilefish Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on April 24, 2006, beginning at noon. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Providence Airport Hotel, 1850 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; telephone:
(401)738-4000. *Council address* : Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE 19904. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(302)674-2331, ext. 19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is to recommend the 2006/07 tilefish quota. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Jan Saunders at
(302)674-2331 ext. 18, at the Council office at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: April 3, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-4980 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 033106B] Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Trawl Survey Advisory Panel, composed of representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), and several independent scientific researchers, will hold a public meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on April 27, 2006, from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. and April 28, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Providence Airport Hotel, 1850 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886 telephone:
(401)738-4000. *Council address* : Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; telephone:
(302)674-2331, ext. 19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to review the results of the March Northeast Fisheries Science Center's experimental trawl survey cruise and continue to develop and evaluate survey protocols for the new survey. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: April 3, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-4981 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 033106E] Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a meeting of the Legislative Committee (Committee), which is open to the public. The primary purpose of the meeting is to review proposed federal legislation regarding the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Committee may also review Federal and state legislative matters relative to the Capital Construction Fund, aquaculture, the American Fisheries Act, and other Council interests. DATES: The Committee will meet on Friday, April 28 2006, from 8:30 a.m. until business for the day is completed. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the West Conference Room at the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384; telephone:
(503)820-2280. *Council address* : Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Burner, Pacific Fishery Management Council Staff Officer; telephone:
(503)820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Legislative Committee often meets concurrently with the Council but will next meet away from a Council meeting to allow additional time to deliberate several significant federal legislative matters. Although not limited to the following topics, the Committee will focus on recently introduced legislation pertaining to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Additionally, the Committee may discuss Senate Bill 1195, the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005; legislation regarding the Capital Construction Fund, and solicited Council input on potential amendment of the American Fisheries Act. Committee recommendations will be provided in a report to the Council which may form the basis for Council input on these important legislative matters. Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at
(503)820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: April 3, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-4995 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 033106C] Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of its Pelagics Plan Team
(PPT)in Honolulu, HI, to discuss fishery issues and develop recommendations for future management. DATES: The meeting of the PPT will be held on May 2-4, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., each day. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Council Office Conference Room, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813; telephone:
(808)522-8220. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone:
(808)522-8220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PPT will meet on May 2-4, 2006, at the Council Conference Room to discuss the following agenda items: Tuesday May 2, 2006, 8:30 a.m. 1. Introduction 2. Annual Report review a. Review 2005 Annual Report modules and recommendations b. 2005 Annual Report region-wide recommendations Wednesday & Thursday, May 4-5, 2005, 8:30 a.m. 3. Modifications to the pelagic annual report 4. Recreational fisheries 5. International fisheries issues a. Report on the second meeting of the Western & central Pacific Fishery Commission b. Report on the International Scientific Committee for tuna and tuna like species in the North Pacific, including stock assessments for North Pacific albacore tuna, northern bluefin tuna and striped marlin 6. Management options for bigeye tuna catches by the Hawaii tuna longline fishery 7. Management options for the Hawaii swordfish longline fishery 8. Fishing effort increase in the Hawaii longline fishery 9. Hawaii offshore mixed line fisheries for tunas 10. South Pacific albacore fisheries 11. Other business The order in which the agenda items are addressed may change. The PPT will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the PPT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Plan Team action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds,
(808)522-8220 (voice) or
(808)522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: April 3, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-4982 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 033106D] Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting and public hearing. SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 132nd meeting to consider and take final action on recommendations to limit fishing in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). The Council will also hold a public hearing during this 132nd Council meeting. DATES: The 132nd Council meeting and public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 20, 2006. For specific dates, times and locations of the public hearing, and the agenda for the 132nd Council meeting, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . ADDRESSES: The 132nd Council meeting and public hearing will be held at the Council's office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813. The 132nd Council meeting telephone conference call-in-number is:
(866)867-8289, passcode 1683776. For Guam and International Participants, the call-in-number is:
(813)276-1442, passcode 1683776. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone:
(808)522-8220; fax:
(808)522-8226. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Information On January 18, 2006, the Council was informed by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, that NOAA is developing alternatives in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed NWHI National Marine Sanctuary that would enable the Council to continue to recommend management measures to limit bottomfish and pelagic fisheries through regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), consistent with the goals and objectives of the proposed sanctuary. While the preferred alternative has not been selected, the range of alternatives under consideration includes a regulatory regime allowing commercial bottomfishing and non-longline pelagic fishing to continue either:
(1)indefinitely,
(2)until 2025, or
(3)for 5 years with a ban on fishing thereafter. The Council was also informed that if, by May 1, 2006, it transmits for Secretarial review, an amendment to the Bottomfish and Pelagics Fishery Management Plans
(FMPs)and corresponding proposed regulations implementing limits to bottomfish and pelagic fishing, NOAA may review those Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations as potential mechanisms to implement NOAA's preferred alternative for the proposed sanctuary, rather than implementing the alternative via the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. At its 131st Council meeting held March 13-16, 2006, the Council took initial action and recommended that limited fishing be allowed in federal waters of the proposed NWHI National Marine Sanctuary and managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (except for recreational fishing at Midway Atoll), consistent with all codified federal regulations and subject to the following restrictions: a. A closure be established indefinitely for all harvests of crustacean, precious coral and coral reef ecosystem species; b. All commercial and recreational fishing be subject to Magnuson-Stevens Act permit and logbook reporting requirements c. Recreational fishing permits be issued on a case-by case basis, and that the Council will evaluate the need for further management; d. Limited-entry NWHI bottomfish permits be capped at 14, with 7 permits for the Ho'omalu Zone and 7 permits for the Mau Zone (the two Community Development Program permits for indigenous use to be included in the latter and issued as previously recommended by the Council); e. The annual bottomfish catch be limited to 381,500 lbs (85% of Maximum Sustainable Yield); f. Non-longline commercial pelagic fishing permits be capped at three (3); g. The annual commercial pelagic catch by the non-longline pelagic fishery and the limited-entry bottomfish fishery be limited to 180,000 lbs.; h. No-take Marine Protected Areas be established around French Frigate Shoals and West of 174 W longitude; i. The use-or-lose requirements for renewal of commercial bottomfish permits be removed; j. Relinquished or revoked commercial bottomfish permits be reissued by NMFS in accordance with the existing procedures for Ho'omalu Zone permits and as described in the Council's previous recommendation for Mau Zone permits; and k. Federally permitted research regarding fishery and ecosystem conservation and management would be allowed in Federal waters. The Council will consider final action on these proposed limits to fishing in the NWHI at this 132nd meeting. 132nd Council Meeting Agenda Thursday, April 20, 2006, 1 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time 1. Introductions 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Limits to Fishing in the NWHI 4. Public Hearing 5. Council Discussion and Action 6. Other Business Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during its 132nd meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds,
(808)522-8220 (voice) or
(808)522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: April 3, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-4983 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Science Board AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings. SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board 2006 Summer Study will meet in closed session on August 7-18, 2006; at the Beckman Center, Irvine, CA. At this meeting, the Defense Science Board will discuss interim findings and recommendations resulting from two ongoing Task Force activities: 21st Century Strategic Technology Vectors and Information Management for Net-Centric Operations. The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Board will develop recommendations regarding: the operational value enabled by networks and networking and their impact on innovations across the Enterprise; the underlying framework, architecture, processes and organizational structures that are in place or being pursued to deliver the power of information to the DoD enterprise as well as potential external partners; and the state of the art in knowledge utilization. The Board will also review and develop recommendations regarding: previous attempts by DoD to identify critical technologies in order to derive lessons that would help illuminate the current challenge; identify the National Security objectives for the 21st century and the operational missions that U.S. military will be called upon to support these objectives; identify new operational capabilities needed for the proposed missions; identify the critical science technology, and other related enablers of the desired capabilities; assess current S&T investment plans' relevance to the needed operational capabilities and enablers and recommend needed changes to the plans; identify mechanisms to accelerate and assure the transition of technology into U.S. military capabilities; and review and recommend changes as needed, the current processes by which national security objectives and needed operational capabilities are used to develop and prioritize science, technology, and other related enablers, and how those enablers are then developed. In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been determined that this meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Debra Rose, Executive Officer, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at *debra.rose@osd.mil* , or via phone at
(703)571-0084. Dated: March 31, 2006. L.M. Bynum, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06-3300 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 22
Traces to 22 documents
CFR
1 reference not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Request for Nominations
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.214
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 351.222
C.F.R.§ 351.221
C.F.R.§ 351.225
C.F.R.§ 351.524
C.F.R.§ 351.525
C.F.R.§ 351.503
Pub. L.Pub. L. 92-463
Cites 23 · showing 10Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.