Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Notices 21219 

1See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China; Initiation of New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 

38607 (July 7, 2006). 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, a member of the FTZ staff 

has been designated examiner to 

investigate the application and report to 

the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address below. The closing period for 

their receipt is June 29, 2007. Rebuttal 

comments in response to material 

submitted during the foregoing period 

may be submitted during the subsequent 

15-day period to July 16, 2007. 

A copy of the application and 

accompanying exhibits will be available 

for public inspection at each of the 

following locations: 

U.S. Department of Commerce Export 

Assistance Center, 1100 St. Francis 

Drive, Santa Fe, NM 87504. 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Room 2814B, 

1401 Constitution Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. 

For further information, contact 

Elizabeth Whiteman at 

ElizabethlWhiteman@ita.doc.gov or 

(202) 482–0473. 

Dated: April 20, 2007. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–8205 Filed 4–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board 

(Docket 16–2007) 

Foreign–Trade Zone 214 -- Lenoir 

County, North Carolina, Application for 

Expansion 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign–Trade Zones (FTZ) Board 

(the Board) by the North Carolina Global 

TransPark Authority, grantee of FTZ 

214, requesting authority to expand its 

zone to include an additional site in 

Rocky Mount adjacent to the Durham 

Customs and Border Protection port of 

entry. The application was submitted 

pursuant to the provisions of the 

Foreign–Trade Zones Act, as amended 

(19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations 

of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was 

formally filed on April 19, 2007. 

FTZ 214 was approved on May 7, 

1996 (Board Order 815, 61 FR 27048, 5/ 

30/96) and expanded on August 14, 

2003 (Board Order 1281, 68 FR 51965, 

8/29/03). The general–purpose zone 

currently consists of two sites (1,205 

acres) in the area: Site 1 (1,170 acres) -- 

Kinston Regional Jetport complex in 

Lenoir County; and, Site 2 (35 acres) -- 

warehouse facility of Kanban Logistics, 

Inc., 1114 Kingsboro Road, Rocky 

Mount. 

The applicant is now requesting 

authority to expand the general–purpose 

zone to an additional site in Rocky 

Mount: Proposed Site 3 (84 acres total) 

-- two warehouse facilities of Crown 

LSP Group, Inc., located at 400 English 

Road (Proposed Site 3A - 56 acres) and 

located at 1201 Thorpe Road (Proposed 

Site 3B - 28 acres). The site is owned by 

AGREDE, LLC. The site will provide 

warehousing and distribution services 

to area businesses. No specific 

manufacturing authority is being 

requested at this time. Such requests 

would be made to the Board on a case–

by-case basis. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff 

has been designated examiner to 

investigate the application and report to 

the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address below. The closing period for 

their receipt is June 29, 2007. Rebuttal 

comments in response to material 

submitted during the foregoing period 

may be submitted during the subsequent 

15-day period to July 16, 2007. 

A copy of the application and 

accompanying exhibits will be available 

for public inspection at each of the 

following locations: Office of Carolinas 

Gateway Partnership, 427 Falls Road, 

Rocky Mount, NC 27804; and, Office of 

the Executive Secretary, Foreign–Trade 

Zones Board, Room 2814B, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230. 

For further information, contact 

Camille Evans at 

CamillelEvans@ita.doc.gov or (202) 

482–2350. 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–8206 Filed 4–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–831 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting new 

shipper reviews of the antidumping 

duty order on fresh garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

covering the period of review (‘‘POR’’) 

of November 1, 2005, through April 30, 

2006. 

On June 27, 2006, the Department 

initiated semi–annual new shipper 

reviews for Jinxiang Tianma Freezing 

Storage Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tianma’’), Shenzhen 

Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Xinboda’’), Shandong Wonderland 

Organic Food Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wonderland’’), 

Weifang Hongqiao International 

Logistics Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hongqiao’’).1

Therefore, this review covers four 

companies. 

We preliminarily determine that 

certain new shipper review companies 

have made sales in the United States at 

prices below normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties 

on entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR for which the importer–

specific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 30, 2007 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–2243. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Background 

On November 16, 1994, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the antidumping duty order on 

fresh garlic from the PRC. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic 

From the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 59209 (November 16, 1994). 

On May 18, May 24, May 26, and May 

30, 2006, we received timely requests 

for new shipper reviews of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
21220 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Notices 

2Petitioners in this proceeding are the Fresh 

Garlic Producers Association and its individual 

members. 

3The verification of Xinboda’s sales took place on 

March 12, 2007. See Memorandum to the File 

through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 

9, from Javier Barrientos, Senior Case Analyst: 

Verification of Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., 

Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review 

of Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China, 

dated April 23, 2007. The verification of the FOPs 

for Zhengzhou Dadi Garlic Industry Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Dadi’’), Xinboda’s producer of subject 

merchandise, took place from March 13, through 

March 14, 2007. Id. 

4The verification of Wonderland’s sales and 

FOPs took place from March 15, 2007 through 

March 16, 2007. See Memorandum to the File 

through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 

9, from Irene Gorelik, Analyst, Office 9: Verification 

of the Sales and Factors Response of Shandong 

Wonderland Organic Food Co., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China, dated April 

23, 2007. 

5The verification of Honqiao’s sales took place on 

March 19, 2007. See Memorandum to the File 

through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 

9, from Javier Barrientos, Senior Case Analyst: 

Verification of Weifang Hongqiao International 

Logistics Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated April 23, 2007. The 

verification of the FOPs for Jinxiang Dingtai Garlic 

Product Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dingtai’’), Hongqiao’s producer 

of subject merchandise, took place on March 20, 

2007. Id. 

6The verification of Tianma’s sales and FOPs 

took place from March 21, through March 23, 2007. 

See Memorandum to the File through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Irene 

Gorelik, Analyst, Office 9: Verification of the Sales 

and Factors Response of Jinxiang Tianma Freezing 

Storage Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping New Shipper 

Review of Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China, dated April 23, 2007. 

7See Memorandum from Irene Gorelik, Analyst, 

Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, to James C. Doyle, Director, 

Office 9: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh 

Garlic: Shandong Wonderland Organic Food Co., 

Ltd., dated April 23, 2007; Memorandum from 

Javier Barrientos, Senior Analyst, Office 9, through 

Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, to 

James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9: Bona Fide 

Nature of the Sale in the Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic: Weifang Hongqiao 

International Logistics Co., Ltd., dated April 23, 

2007; Memorandum from Irene Gorelik, Analyst, 

Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, to James C. Doyle, Office 

Director, Office 9: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in 

the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’): Jinxiang Tianma Freezing Storage Co., 

Ltd., dated April 23, 2007; and Memorandum from 

Javier Barrientos, Senior Analyst, Office 9, through 

Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, to 

James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9: Bona Fide 

Nature of the Sale in the Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic: Shenzhen Xinboda 

Industrial Co., Ltd., dated April 23, 2007. 

Xinboda,Wonderland, Hongqiao, and 

Tianma, respectively. On June 30, 2006, 

after initiating the reviews, the 

Department issued antidumping duty 

questionnaires to the four companies 

participating in the new shipper 

reviews. The Department subsequently 

issued supplemental questionnaires to 

all companies under review between 

September 2006 and February 2007. 

Expansion of the POR 

On April 23, 2007, we issued a 

memorandum extending the end of the 

POR from April 30, 2006, to May 4, 

2006, to capture entries of two of the 

new shippers’ merchandise into the 

United States market. See Memorandum 

to the File from Javier Barrientos, Senior 

Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Office 9: Expansion 

of the Period of Review in the New 

Shipper Reviews of Fresh Garlic from 

the People’s Republic of China, dated 

April 23, 2007. 

Extension of Preliminary Results 

Deadline 

On December 20, 2006, the 

Department published a notice 

extending the preliminary results time 

limits of these new shipper reviews to 

April 23, 2007. See Fresh Garlic from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limits for the 

Preliminary Results of the New Shipper 

Reviews, 71 FR 76272 (December 20, 

2006). The final results continue to be 

due 90 days after the publication of 

these preliminary results. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

On November 20, 2006, and April 3, 

2007, Petitioners submitted surrogate 

value comments.2 To date, no other 

parties have submitted surrogate value 

or surrogate country comments on the 

record of this proceeding. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this 

antidumping duty order are all grades of 

garlic, whole or separated into 

constituent cloves, whether or not 

peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, 

provisionally preserved, or packed in 

water or other neutral substance, but not 

prepared or preserved by the addition of 

other ingredients or heat processing. 

The differences between grades are 

based on color, size, sheathing, and 

level of decay. The scope of this order 

does not include the following: (a) 

Garlic that has been mechanically 

harvested and that is primarily, but not 

exclusively, destined for non–fresh use; 

or (b) garlic that has been specially 

prepared and cultivated prior to 

planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed. The 

subject merchandise is used principally 

as a food product and for seasoning. The 

subject garlic is currently classifiable 

under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 

0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 

0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 

0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. In order to be 

excluded from the antidumping duty 

order, garlic entered under the HTSUS 

subheadings listed above that is (1) 

mechanically harvested and primarily, 

but not exclusively, destined for non–

fresh use or (2) specially prepared and 

cultivated prior to planting and then 

harvested and otherwise prepared for 

use as seed must be accompanied by 

declarations to CBP to that effect. 

Verification 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), we 

conducted verifications of the sales and 

factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) for 

Xinboda3, Wonderland4, Hongqiao5, 

and Tianma6. 

New Shipper Reviews Bona Fide 

Analysis 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we investigated the bona fide 

nature of the sales made by Xinboda, 

Hongqiao, Wonderland, and Tianma for 

the new shipper reviews. We found that 

new shipper sales made by Xinboda, 

Hongqiao, Wonderland, and Tianma 

were made on a bona fide basis. Based 

on our investigation into the bona fide 

nature of the sales, the questionnaire 

responses submitted by the companies, 

and our verifications thereof, as well the 

companies’ eligibility for a separate rate 

(see Separate Rates Determination 

section below) and the Department’s 

preliminary determination that 

Xinboda, Hongqiao, Wonderland, and 

Tianma were not affiliated with any 

exporter or producer that had 

previously shipped subject merchandise 

to the United States, we preliminarily 

determine that each of the above–named 

respondents has met the requirements to 

qualify as a new shipper during the 

POR. Therefore, for purposes of these 

preliminary results of review, we are 

treating Xinboda’s, Hongqiao’s, 

Wonderland’s, and Tianma’s respective 

sales of subject merchandise to the 

United States as appropriate 

transactions for these new shipper 

reviews.7

Non–Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a Non–Market 

Economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’), any determination that a foreign 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Notices 21221 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). 

None of the parties to this proceeding 

has contested such treatment. 

Accordingly, we calculated normal 

value (‘‘NV’’) in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Separate Rates Determination 

A designation as an NME remains in 

effect until it is revoked by the 

Department. See section 771(18)(C) of 

the Act. Accordingly, there is a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the PRC are subject to 

government control and, thus, should be 

assessed a single antidumping duty rate. 

See e.g., Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Activated Carbon from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 9508 

(March 2, 2007). 

It is the Department’s standard policy 

to assign all exporters of the 

merchandise subject to review in NME 

countries a single rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 

with respect to exports. To establish 

whether a company is sufficiently 

independent to be entitled to a separate, 

company–specific rate, the Department 

analyzes each exporting entity in an 

NME country under the test established 

in the Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991), as amplified by the 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). 

A. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; and (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies. 

Throughout the course of this 

proceeding, the new shipper companies 

(Xinboda, Hongqiao, Wonderland, and 

Tianma) have placed sufficient evidence 

on the record that demonstrate the 

absence of de jure control. The new 

shipper companies have placed on the 

record a number of documents to 

demonstrate absence of de jure control 

including the ‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the 

People’s Republic of China’’ and the 

‘‘Administrative Regulations of the 

People’s Republic of China Governing 

the Registration of Legal Corporations.’’

The Department has analyzed such PRC 

laws and found that they establish an 

absence of de jure control. See, e.g., 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 66 

FR 30695 (June 7, 2001). We have no 

information in this proceeding that 

would cause us to reconsider this 

determination. Thus, we believe that the 

evidence on the record supports a 

preliminary finding of an absence of de 

jure government control based on: (1) an 

absence of restrictive stipulations 

associated with the exporter’s business 

license; and (2) the legal authority on 

the record decentralizing control over 

the respondent. 

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

some evidence that certain enactments 

of the PRC central government have not 

been implemented uniformly among 

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in 

the PRC. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 

(December 31, 1998). Therefore, the 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

government control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. The Department typically 

considers four factors in evaluating 

whether each respondent is subject to 

de facto government control of its export 

functions: (1) whether the exporter sets 

its own export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) whether the 

respondent has the authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts, and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of its management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. 

The Department conducted a 

separate–rates analysis for the new 

shipper companies under review: 

Hongqiao, Tianma, Wonderland, and 

Xinboda. Hongqiao, Tianma, and 

Xinboda reported that they are limited–

liability companies owned by private 

investors. However, one new shipper 

review company, Wonderland, reported 

that it is wholly owned by a foreign 

entity. Therefore, an additional 

separate–rates analysis is not necessary 

to determine whether Wonderland’s 

export activities are independent from 

government control. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from 

the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 

71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999) 

(where the respondent was wholly 

foreign–owned, and thus, qualified for a 

separate rate). 

These companies have all asserted the 

following: (1) there is no government 

participation in setting export prices; (2) 

sales managers and authorized 

employees have the authority to bind 

sales contracts; (3) they do not have to 

notify any government authorities of 

management selections; (4) there are no 

restrictions on the use of export 

revenue; and (5) each is responsible for 

financing its own losses. The 

questionnaire responses of the new 

shipper companies (Hongqiao, Tianma, 

Wonderland, and Xinboda) do not 

suggest that pricing is coordinated 

among exporters. During our analysis of 

the information on the record, we found 

no information indicating the existence 

of government control. Consequently, 

we preliminarily determine that 

Hongqiao, Tianma, Wonderland, and 

Xinboda have met the criteria for the 

application of a separate rate. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, 

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate 

market economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOPs in one or more market economy 

countries that are: (1) at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below and in Memorandum to the File 

through James C. Doyle, Director, Office 

9 and Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9 from Javier 

Barrientos, Senior Analyst, Office 9: 

Surrogate Factor Valuations for the 

Preliminary Results of the New Shipper 

Reviews, dated April 23, 2007 (‘‘Factor 

Valuation Memo’’). 

As discussed in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’

section, the Department considers the 

PRC to be an NME country. The 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
21222 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Notices 

8See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 34082 (June 13, 2005) 

(‘‘9th Review Final Results’’). 

9See Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, 

Analyst; New Shipper Reviews of Fresh Garlic from 

the People’s Republic of China: Intermediate Input 

Methodology Memoranda from the 10th 

Administrative Review Final Results and 11th 

Administrative Review Preliminary Results, dated 

April 23, 2007, in which the Department placed the 

Intermediate Input Methodology memos from the 

tenth and eleventh Administrative Reviews on the 

record of this proceeding, inclusive of the 

verification reports resulting from the ‘‘harvest 

verification.’’

10See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Final Results of New Shipper Reviews 71 FR 26329 

(May 4, 2006) (‘‘10th Review Final Results’’), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

Department has treated the PRC as an 

NME country in all previous 

antidumping proceedings. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. None of the 

parties to this proceeding contested 

such treatment. Accordingly, we treated 

the PRC as an NME country for 

purposes of these reviews and 

calculated NV, pursuant to section 

773(c) of the Act, by valuing the FOPs 

in a surrogate country. 

The Department determined that 

India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Philippines, 

and Egypt are countries comparable to 

the PRC in terms of economic 

development. See Memorandum from 

Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of 

Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: 

Antidumping Administrative Review of 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China: Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries, dated August 7, 2006. 

Moreover, it is the Department’s 

practice to select an appropriate 

surrogate country based on the 

availability and reliability of data from 

the countries. See Department Policy 

Bulletin No. 04.1: Non–Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process, 

dated March 1, 2004. In this case, we 

have found that India and Egypt are 

both significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. As previously 

stated, only Petitioners submitted data 

with respect to surrogate factor values 

with Indian data. No parties submitted 

Egyptian data on the record for this 

proceeding. Moreover, since India has 

been the primary surrogate country in 

past segments, for these new shipper 

reviews, we will rely on Indian data 

with respect to surrogate factor 

valuations and surrogate financial 

ratios. Therefore, we find India to be a 

reliable source for surrogate values 

because India is at a similar level of 

economic development pursuant to 

773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise, 

and has publicly available and reliable 

data. See Memorandum to the File, 

through James C. Doyle, Office Director, 

Office 9, Import Administration, and 

Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, 

Office 9, from Javier Barrientos, Senior 

Analyst: Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Reviews of Fresh Garlic from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated 

April 23, 2007. Furthermore, we note 

that India has been the primary 

surrogate country in past segments and 

Petitioners submitted surrogate values 

based on Indian import data that are 

contemporaneous with the POR, which 

gives further credence to the use of 

India as a surrogate country. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated the export price 

(‘‘EP’’) for sales to the United States for 

Hongqiao, Tianma, Wonderland, and 

Xinboda because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated party was made before the 

date of importation and the use of 

constructed EP was not otherwise 

warranted. We calculated EP based on 

the price to unaffiliated purchasers in 

the United States. In accordance with 

section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, 

we deducted from the starting price to 

unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland 

freight and brokerage and handling. For 

Hongqiao, Tianma, Wonderland, and 

Xinboda, each of these services was 

either provided by an NME vendor or 

paid for using an NME currency. Thus, 

we based the deduction of these 

movement charges on surrogate values. 

See Factor Valuation Memo for details 

regarding the surrogate values for 

movement expenses. 

Normal Value 

1. Methodology 

The Department’s general policy, 

consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of 

the Act, is to calculate NV using each of 

the FOPs that a respondent consumes in 

the production of a unit of the subject 

merchandise. There are circumstances, 

however, in which the Department will 

modify its standard FOP methodology, 

choosing to apply a surrogate value to 

an intermediate input instead of the 

individual FOPs used to produce that 

intermediate input. In some cases, a 

respondent may report factors used to 

produce an intermediate input that 

accounts for an insignificant share of 

total output. When the potential 

increase in accuracy to the overall 

calculation that results from valuing 

each of the FOPs is outweighed by the 

resources, time, and burden such an 

analysis would place on all parties to 

the proceeding, the Department has 

valued the intermediate input directly 

using a surrogate value. See, e.g., Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol 

from the People’s Republic of China, 68 

FR 4753 (August 11, 2003), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1 (which 

cites to Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of First New Shipper 

Review and First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 66 FR 31204 

(June 11, 2001), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2). 

In the 9th Review Final Results, the 

Department recognized that there were 

serious discrepancies between the 

reported FOPs of the different 

respondents and that the standard FOP 

methodology might not be adequate to 

apply in future reviews.8 In the tenth 

administrative review, the Department 

conducted a ‘‘harvest verification’’ of 

several garlic producers in the PRC, 

interviewing farmers, studying farming 

techniques, and reviewing standard PRC 

garlic production record–keeping.9 In 

analyzing the questionnaire responses 

and ‘‘harvest verification’’ reports in the 

tenth administrative review, the 

Department determined that, to capture 

the complete costs of producing fresh 

garlic, the methodology of valuing the 

intermediate product, the fresh garlic 

bulb, would more accurately capture the 

complete costs of producing subject 

merchandise.10 In the 10th Review Final 

Results, we also stated that ‘‘should a 

respondent be able provide sufficient 

factual evidence that it maintains the 

necessary information in its internal 

books and records that would allow us 

to establish the completeness and 

accuracy of the reported FOPs, we will 

revisit this issue and consider whether 

to use its reported FOPs in the 

calculation of NV.’’ See 10th Review 

Final Results at 26331; see also Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Partial Rescission and 

Preliminary Results of the Eleventh 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews 71 FR 71510 

(December 11, 2006). 

In the course of these reviews, the 

Department has requested and obtained 

a vast amount of detailed information 

from the respondents with respect to 

each company’s garlic production 

practices. Questionnaire responses 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Notices 21223 

11Specifically, Wonderland is a processor and 

exporter of fresh garlic that purchased whole garlic 

bulb and processed it for export. Both Hongqiao and 

Xinboda are exporters that purchased already 

processed garlic for export from their unaffiliated 

suppliers. Hongqiao and Xinboda’s unaffiliated 

suppliers do not grow but purchase whole garlic 

and process it. Consequently, the FOPs provided by 

Wonderland, Xinboda’s unaffiliated supplier and 

Hongqiao’s unaffiliated supplier all begin with 

whole garlic bulb and not the factors that are used 

to grow whole garlic bulb. 

12For information concerning this surrogate 

value, see Petitioners’ November 20, 2006, and 

April, 3, 2007 submissions. 

revealed, and subsequent verifications 

confirmed, that only Tianma had 

farming operations to grow fresh 

garlic.11 Based on our analysis of the 

information on the record and for the 

reasons outlined in the Memorandum to 

the File through James C. Doyle, 

Director, Office 9 and Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Office 9 from Irene 

Gorelik, Analyst, Office 9: New Shipper 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Intermediate Input 

Methodology, April 23, 2007 

(‘‘Intermediate Product Memo’’), we 

continue to believe that the sole 

company that grew fresh garlic, Tianma, 

was unable to accurately record and 

substantiate the complete costs of 

growing garlic during the POR. 

Thus, in order to eliminate the 

distortions in our calculation of NV for 

all of the reasons identified above and 

described in the Intermediate Product 

Memo, we applied an ‘‘intermediate–

product valuation methodology’’ to all 

companies. Using this methodology, we 

calculated NV by starting with a 

surrogate value for the garlic bulb (i.e., 

the ‘‘intermediate product’’), adjusted 

for yield losses during the processing 

stages, and adding the respondents’

processing costs, which were calculated 

using their reported usage rates for 

processing fresh garlic. For a complete 

explanation of the Department’s 

analysis, and for a more detailed 

analysis of these issues with respect to 

each respondent, see Intermediate 

Product Memo. 

2. Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

intermediate product value and 

processing FOPs reported by the 

respondents for the POR. To calculate 

NV, we multiplied the reported per–unit 

factor quantities by publicly available 

surrogate values in India with the 

exception of the surrogate value for 

ocean freight, which we obtained from 

an international freight company. In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. We calculated these 

freight costs based on the shorter of the 

reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory or the distance 

from the port in accordance with the 

decision in Sigma Corporation v. United 

States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sale(s) as certified by the U.S. 

Federal Reserve Bank. 

Garlic Bulb Value 

In applying the intermediate input 

methodology, the Department sought 

foremost to identify the best available 

surrogate value for the fresh garlic bulb 

input to production, as opposed to 

identifying a surrogate value for garlic 

seed. Therefore, we have valued the 

fresh garlic bulb using prices for the 

‘‘super–A’’ grade garlic bulb in India, as 

published by Azadpur Agriculture 

Produce Marketing Committee 

(‘‘APMC’’) in its ‘‘Market Information 

Bulletin’’ (the ‘‘Bulletin’’).12 Azadpur 

APMC is the largest fruit and vegetable 

market in Asia and has become a 

‘‘National Distribution Centre’’ for 

important Indian agricultural products 

such as garlic. We note that the ‘‘super–

A’’ grade denotes a garlic bulb which is 

over 40 millimeters (‘‘mm’’) in diameter 

and that the respondents’ subject 

merchandise is, on average, greater than 

40 mm in diameter, as identified within 

the respondents’ questionnaire 

responses. As the Department 

determined in past reviews, the price at 

which garlic is sold is heavily 

dependent upon physical 

characteristics, such as bulb size and 

number of cloves. See 9th Review Final 

Results at Comment 2; see also 10th

Review Final Results at Comment 2. For 

these preliminary results, we find that 

the ‘‘super–A’’ data from Azadpur 

APMC is the best available and most 

appropriate information on the record to 

value the garlic bulb input, pursuant to 

section 773(c) of the Act. 

To value the fresh garlic bulb in the 

last administrative review, the 

Department used information from the 

Agricultural Marketing Information 

Network (‘‘Agmarknet’’) database. The 

database on the Agmarknet website 

contains daily prices from APMCs 

throughout India and has information 

on prices and varieties of garlic sold in 

India, but does not contain information 

on the grade/size of the bulb. In the last 

administrative review, the Department 

concluded that the ‘‘China’’ variety 

bulb, found in the Agmarknet database, 

is reflective of the larger bulb used by 

the respondents in the production of 

subject merchandise. See 10th Review 

Final Results at Comment 2. The 

Department believes the Azadpur APMC 

to be a superior source of information 

for purposes of these reviews for the 

reasons stated below. 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting the ‘‘best available 

information’’ for valuing FOPs, in 

accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the 

Act, is to select, to the extent 

practicable, surrogate values which are: 

publicly available, product–specific, 

representative of a broad market 

average, tax–exclusive and 

contemporaneous with the POR. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas 

from the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 16116 (March 30, 2006), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

(1) The Bulletin is Publicly Available 

We note that the Bulletin is published 

for public distribution on each trading 

day (six days per week) and contains 

daily information on agricultural 

products sold at the APMC. In addition, 

the Bulletin is available electronically 

upon request from Azadpur APMC. 

Thus, we find that the Bulletin is 

publicly available information. 

(2) The Bulletin is Sufficiently Specific 

With respect to garlic prices, the 

Bulletin contains count size–specific 

data such as the grade of the bulb and 

prices (minimum, maximum and modal) 

in rupees of the various grades of garlic. 

As we have explained in past cases, this 

is extremely important data for purposes 

of our analysis, as respondents’ garlic 

bulb products/inputs are, on average, 

over 40mm in diameter, and most 

Indian garlic is not that large. ‘‘super–

A’’ garlic, however, is defined to be that 

size. Thus, the Department finds the 

‘‘super–A’’ garlic pricing information in 

the Bulletin to be more specific to the 

input in question than the Agmarknet 

data because it provides a surrogate 

value based on a quantifiable bulb size 

(grade) with which to value the 

intermediate product. 

(3) The Bulletin reports a broad market 

average 

As noted above, Azadpur APMC is a 

‘‘National Distribution Centre’’ for 

agricultural products. A careful 

examination of the Bulletin shows that 

agricultural products from all over India 

are sold at Azadpur APMC, which 

claims to be the largest fruit and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
21224 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Notices 

13Other than Petitioners, none of the four new 

shipper companies submitted surrogate value 

comments or data. 

14We note that the Azadpur APMC Market 

Information Bulletin database also discusses 

unloading weighing fees. However, we do not 

believe that an adjustment is necessary in our 

calculations to reflect these fees. First, it is not clear 

that this charge is applied to all, or even most, 

farmers. Furthermore, this charge does not appear 

to be a tax or duty. 

vegetable market (by quantity) in the 

world. See Azadpur APMC’s website 

www.apmcazadpurdelhi.com. Thus, we 

find the Bulletin’s ‘‘super–A’’ garlic 

prices to be representative of a broad 

market average. 

Furthermore, there is no record 

evidence which suggests that the prices 

included in the Bulletin are inclusive of 

taxes or duties. 

Adjustments for Contemporaneity and 

Other Matters 

In selecting the best available and 

most appropriate surrogate value for the 

fresh garlic bulb, the Department 

considered all surrogate value 

comments submitted by Petitioners and 

have determined that certain 

adjustments are necessary.13

With respect to contemporaneity, we 

note that the Azadpur APMC data is not 

contemporaneous with the POR. We 

note that the record shows that data 

points for ‘‘super–A’’ garlic in the 

Azadpur Bulletin were not publicly 

recorded until May 2006 (a month after 

the POR). However, we are able to 

adjust the post–POR surrogate value of 

‘‘super–A’’ garlic by deflating the data 

points, i.e., we divided the average 

Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) for the 

six months of the POR by the average 

WPI of the number of months for which 

we gathered data points for May - July 

2006, and applied the resultant ratio to 

the average price of ‘‘super–A’’ garlic. 

The Department’s methodology for 

deflation is described in detail in the 

Factor Valuation Memo. Thus, we 

believe such deflation addresses our 

concerns about the contemporaneity of 

the data. 

With respect to the markets within 

India used by the Department, it is the 

Department’s practice to use country–

wide data instead of regional data when 

the former is available. See Wuhan Bee 

Healthy Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip 

Op. 05–142 (CIT 2005), at 5. Thus, we 

have included all data points for sales 

of ‘‘super–A’’ garlic from seven Indian 

states in calculating a surrogate value 

for fresh garlic bulbs. See Factor 

Valuation Memo at 4. 

In addition, the Department used a 

simple average rather than a weighted 

average of all ‘‘super–A’’ garlic prices to 

calculate the fresh bulb surrogate value 

because daily arrivals are not recorded 

on a size basis and we were unable to 

determine the weight of the ‘‘super–A’’

garlic versus the weight of the other 

grades of garlic. 

Finally, the Department deducted a 

six percent market fee imposed by 

Azadpur AMPC on sales made at the 

APMC, as indicated on the APMC 

website.14

Because the Department is applying 

an ‘‘intermediate–product valuation 

methodology, ’’ resulting in the 

valuation of factor inputs that begin 

with whole garlic bulb, the direct 

material, and other factors such as 

electricity, water, mesh bags, cartons, 

tape and plastic banding, where 

applicable, that are associated with 

processing whole garlic will be valued 

with surrogate data from India. 

Furthermore, Indian surrogate financial 

ratios will also be applied to all four 

new shipper companies. The sources 

and calculations for the surrogate factor 

valuations and surrogate financial ratios 

are described in full detail in the Factor 

Valuation Memo. 

Preliminary Results of the Reviews 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period November 

1, 2005, through May 4, 2006: 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weighted–

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Produced by Jinxiang Dingtai 

Garlic Product Co., Ltd. and 

Exported by Weifang 

Hongqiao International Logistics Co., Ltd. ............................ 25.34 % 

Produced and Exported by 

Jinxiang Tianma Freezing 

Storage Co., Ltd. ..................... 8.42 % 

Produced and Exported by 

Shandong Wonderland Organic Food Co., Ltd. ............... 5.24 % 

Produced by Zhengzhou Dadi 

Garlic Industry Co., Ltd. and 

Exported by Shenzhen 

Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. .... 0.00 % (de 

minimis) 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in 

an antidumping new shipper review, 

interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value FOPs 

within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

and/or written comments no later than 

30 days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results of review. See 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs 

and rebuttals to written comments, 

limited to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, may be filed no later than 35 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results of review. See 

19 CFR 351.309(d). 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Requests should contain the 

following information: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. If we receive a 

request for a hearing, we plan to hold 

the hearing seven days after the 

deadline for submission of the rebuttal 

briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of these new shipper reviews, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 90 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

the Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer–specific (or customer) ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of these new shipper reviews for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Notices 21225 

all shipments of subject merchandise 

from Hongqiao, Wonderland, Tianma, 

and Xinboda entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date, as provided 

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

subject merchandise produced and 

exported by Tianma, produced and 

exported by Wonderland, produced by 

Dadi and exported by Xinboda, or 

produced by Dingtai and exported by 

Hongqiao, the cash–deposit rate will be 

that established in the final results of 

these reviews; (2) for subject 

merchandise exported by Hongqiao but 

not manufactured by Dingtai and for 

subject merchandise exported by 

Xinboda but not manufactured by Dadi, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the PRC–wide rate (i.e., 376.67 percent); 

and (3) for subject merchandise 

exported by Wonderland or Tianma, but 

manufactured by any other party, the 

cash deposit rate will be the PRC–wide 

rate (i.e., 376.67 percent). 

If the cash deposit rate calculated in 

the final results is zero or de minimis, 

no cash deposit will be required for 

those specific producer–exporter 

combinations. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These the new shipper reviews and 

this notice are in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 

351.221(b)(4) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

Dated: April 23, 2007. 

David A. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8195 Filed 4–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 042307A] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Skate Fishery Management 

Plan; Scoping Process 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

and notice of initiation of scoping 

process; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

announces its intent to prepare an 

amendment to the Skate Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) and to prepare 

an EIS to analyze the impacts of any 

proposed management measures. The 

Council is also formally initiating a 

public process to determine the scope of 

alternatives to be addressed in the 

amendment and EIS. The purpose of 

this notification is to alert the interested 

public of the re-commencement of the 

scoping process and to provide for 

public participation in compliance with 

environmental documentation 

requirements. 

DATES: The Council will discuss and 

take scoping comments at public 

meetings in May, 2007. For specific 

dates and times of the scoping meetings, 

see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

Written scoping comments must be 

received on or before 5 p.m., local time, 

May 30, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: The Council will take 

scoping comments at public meetings in 

Gloucester, MA, Narragansett, RI and 

Buzzards Bay, MA. For specific 

locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. Written comments should 

be submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional 

Administrator, Northeast Region, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, One 

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930–2298. Please write on the 

envelope: ‘‘Scoping Comments on 

Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP’’; 

• E-mail: SkateScoping@noaa.gov; 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135. 

Requests for copies of the scoping 

document and other information should 

be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive 

Director, New England Fishery 

Management Council, 50 Water Street, 

Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, 

telephone (978) 465–0492. The scoping 

document is also accessible 

electronically via the Internet at http:// 

www.nefmc.org/skates/index.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council, 

(978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Skate FMP was implemented in 

September 2003. The primary objectives 

of the Skate FMP are to: (1) Protect the 

overfished species of skates and 

increase their biomass to target levels 

specified in the FMP while preventing 

overfishing of the other skate species; 

and (2) collect information critical for 

improving knowledge of skate fisheries 

by species and for monitoring the status 

of skate fisheries, resources, and related 

markets, as well as the effectiveness of 

skates management approaches. The 

FMP includes reporting requirements to 

improve fishery information, 

prohibitions on overfished species, a 

trip limit for the skate wing fishery, and 

mechanisms for FMP monitoring and 

plan adjustments. Through the 

establishment of a ‘‘baseline’’ of 

management measures in other 

fisheries, the FMP recognizes the 

interactions of skates with groundfish, 

scallops, and monkfish fisheries. In 

2006, winter skate was determined to be 

overfished. Therefore, under the 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, the Council must develop and 

implement a rebuilding plan for this 

resource. 

Measures Under Consideration 

The Council may consider a host of 

management measures to reduce skate 

mortality, improve reporting, cap or 

reduce landings, and/or reduce bycatch 

and discard mortality to prevent 

overfishing and rebuild overfished 

stocks. Measures that may be considered 

include, but are not limited to, a hard 

TAC for the directed skate fishery, 

annual catch limits and accountability 

measures, greater regulation of the 

fishery through days-at-sea limits, 

changes to skate possession limits, 

changes to exempted fisheries and 

closed areas, new gear regulations, and 

elimination of the baseline review 

process and proxy input controls. 

It is possible that during the scoping 

process, other issues will be raised 

related to the purpose of this 

amendment, and if appropriate, those 

issues will be considered by the Council 

as well. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES