29930 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–605]

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice

from Brazil; Preliminary Results and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioners and one producer/exporter

of the subject merchandise, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on frozen

concentrated orange juice from Brazil.

This review covers four manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States. This is the thirteenth

period of review, covering May 1, 1999,

through April 30, 2000.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

normal value by Citrovita AgroIndustrial Ltda. in this review. In

addition, we have preliminarily

determined to rescind the review with

respect to Branco Peres Citrus S.A.,

CTM Citrus S.A., and Sucorrico S.A.

because they had no shipments of

subject merchandise to the United

States during the period of review. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

the final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct the Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

all appropriate entries.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who wish to submit comments

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with each argument: (1) A

statement of the issue; and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina

Itkin, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement,

Office 2, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202)

482–0656.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

are to the Department’s regulations at 19

CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

On May 16, 2000, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on frozen

concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from

Brazil (65 FR 31141).

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b)(1), on May 12, 2000, one

producer and exporter of FCOJ, Citrovita

Agro Industrial Ltda. (Citrovita),

requested an administrative review of

the antidumping order covering the

period May 1, 1999, through April 30,

2000. On May 31, 2000, the petitioners,

Florida Citrus Mutual, Caulkins

Indiantown Citrus Co., Citrus Belle,

Citrus World, Inc., Orange-Co of Florida,

Inc., Peace River Citrus Products, Inc.,

and Southern Gardens Citrus Processors

Corp., also requested an administrative

review for the following four producers

and exporters of FCOJ: Branco Peres

Citrus S.A. (Branco Peres); Citrovita and

its affiliated parties (Cambuhy MC

Industrial Ltda. (Cambuhy) and

Cambuhy Citrus Comercial e

Exportadora (Cambuhy Exportadora));

CTM Citrus S.A. (CTM); and Sucorrico

S.A. (Sucorrico).

On July 7, 2000, the Department

initiated an administrative review for

Branco Peres, Citrovita and its affiliates

Cambuhy and Cambuhy Exportadora,

CTM, and Sucorrico (65 FR 41942), and

consequently issued questionnaires to

them.

On July 12, July 21, and August 24,

2000, respectively, CTM, Branco Peres,

and Sucorrico informed the Department

that they had no shipments of subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period of review (POR). We have

confirmed this with the Customs

Service with regard to CTM and

Sucorrico. See the memorandum from

Jason M. Hoody to the File, entitled

‘‘U.S. Customs Data Query for Entries

During the 1999–2000 Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review on Frozen

Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil,’’

dated May 30, 2001 (the Customs

memo). Consequently, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and

consistent with our practice, we are

preliminarily rescinding our review for

CTM and Sucorrico. For further

discussion, see the ‘‘Partial Rescission

of Review’’ section of this notice, below.

Regarding Branco Peres, we were

informed by the Customs Service that

there was an entry of subject

merchandise during the POR withdrawn

from a bonded warehouse, which was

produced by Branco Peres. See the

Customs memo. Consequently, we asked

Branco Peres to explain the

circumstances surrounding this entry.

Banco Peres responded that it had

reported the sale associated with the

entry in question in the prior 1997–1998

administrative review of this

proceeding. Because we reviewed the

sale associated with this entry in the

context of the 1997–1998 administrative

review completed August 11, 1999, we

have determined that Branco Peres did

not have any reviewable entries during

this POR. Accordingly, we also are

preliminarily rescinding our review of

Branco Peres and intend to order

liquidation of the entry in question at

the rate in effect at the time of entry, in

accordance with our practice. For

further discussion, see the ‘‘Partial

Rescission of Review’’ section of this

notice, below.

In August and September 2000, we

received a response from Citrovita to

sections A through C and section D,

respectively, of the our questionnaire. In

September 2000, November 2000,

January 2001, and March 2001, we

issued supplemental questionnaires to

Citrovita. We received responses to

these questionnaires in October 2000,

December 2000, February 2001, and

March 2001.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is frozen concentrated orange

juice from Brazil. The merchandise is

currently classifiable under item

2009.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

The HTSUS item number is provided

for convenience and for customs

purposes. The written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

The POR is May 1, 1999, through

April 30, 2000.

Partial Rescission of Review

As noted above, Branco Peres, CTM

and Sucorrico informed the Department

that they had no shipments of subject

merchandise to the United States during

the POR. We have confirmed this with

the Customs Service and with

information submitted by Branco Peres

from a previous segment of this

proceeding. See the memorandum from

Jason M. Hoody to the File, entitled

‘‘U.S. Sales of Branco Peres in the 1997–

1998 Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review on Frozen Concentrated Orange

Juice from Brazil,’’ dated May 30, 2001.

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the

Department’s practice, we are

preliminarily rescinding our review

with respect to Branco Peres, CTM and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Notices 29931

1Hereinafter, these companies will be referred to

collectively as ‘‘Citrovita,’’ unless otherwise noted.

Sucorrico. (See e.g., Certain Welded

Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from

Turkey; Final Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 63 FR 35190,

35191 (June 29, 1998); and Certain Fresh

Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final

Results and Partial Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 53287, 53288 (Oct. 14,

1997).)

Affiliated Producers

During the previous administrative

review, a sister company to Citrovita’s

parent company purchased another

Brazilian producer of FCOJ and that

producer’s affiliated trading company

(i.e., Cambuhy and Cambuhy

Exportadora, respectively). In that

segment of the proceeding, we

determined that it was appropriate to

treat Citrovita and these affiliated

parties as a single entity using the

criteria outlined in 19 CFR 351.401(f).

See Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review:

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from

Brazil, 65 FR 60406, 60407 (Oct. 11,

2000) (FCOJ 1998–1999 Final Results).

Because neither Citrovita nor Cambuhy

has provided any new evidence

showing that this finding no longer

holds true, we have continued to treat

Citrovita and Cambuhy as a single entity

and to calculate a single margin for

them.1 (See e.g., Certain Welded Carbon

Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR

17998, 17999 (April 13, 1999)

(unchanged by the final results).)

Regarding Cambuhy Exportadora,

however, Citrovita provided information

demonstrating that this company did

not function as a producer of FCOJ

during the POR. Accordingly, we have

not collapsed Cambuhy Exportadora

with Citrovita and Cambuhy for

purposes of the preliminary results.

Comparison Methodology

To determine whether sales of FCOJ

from Brazil to the United States were

made at less than normal value (NV), we

compared the export price (EP) to the

NV for Citrovita, as specified in the

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice, below.

When making comparisons in

accordance with section 771(16) of the

Act, we considered all products sold in

the home market as described in the

‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section of this

notice, above, that were in the ordinary

course of trade for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there

were no sales of merchandise in the

home market made in the ordinary

course of trade (i.e., sales within the

contemporaneous window which

passed the cost test), we compared U.S.

sales to constructed value (CV) in

accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the

Act.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade as EP. The NV level

of trade is that of the starting-price sales

in the comparison market or, when NV

is based on CV, that of the sales from

which we derive selling, general and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and

profit. For EP, it is also the level of the

starting-price sales, which is usually

from the exporter to importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than EP sales,

we examine stages in the marketing

process and selling functions along the

chain of distribution between the

producer and the unaffiliated customer.

If the comparison-market sales are at a

different level of trade, and the

difference affects price comparability, as

manifested in a pattern of consistent

price differences between the sales on

which NV is based and comparisonmarket sales at the level of trade of the

export transaction, we make a level-oftrade adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Citrovita claimed that it made home

market and U.S. sales at only one level

of trade (i.e., sales to end users). Because

Citrovita performed the same selling

activities for sales to all customers in

the home market and the United States,

we determined that these sales are at the

same level of trade. Therefore, no level

of trade adjustment is warranted for

Citrovita.

Export Price

For sales by Citrovita, we based the

starting price on EP, in accordance with

section 772(a) of the Act, because the

subject merchandise was sold to

unrelated purchasers in the United

States prior to importation and because

constructed export price methodology

was not otherwise applicable.

We based EP on the gross unit price

to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions for foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage and handling

expenses, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. customs duty, and U.S.

brokerage and handling expenses, in

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there is

a sufficient volume of sales in the home

market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product is greater than five

percent of the aggregate volume of U.S.

sales), we compared the volume of

Citrovita’s home market sales of the

foreign like product to the volume of

U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b).

Based on this comparison, we

determined that Citrovita had a viable

home market during the POR.

Consequently, we based NV on home

market sales.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act, there were reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that Citrovita had

made home market sales at prices below

its cost of production (COP) in this

review because the Department

disregarded sales that failed the cost test

for Citrovita in the most recently

completed administrative review. (See

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from

Brazil: Final Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 64 FR 43650,

43652 (August 11, 1999).) As a result,

the Department initiated an

investigation to determine whether

Citrovita made home market sales

during the POR at prices below its COP.

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of Citrovita’s and its affiliated

producer’s costs of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for SG&A expenses and

packing costs, in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

We used the reported COP amounts to

compute a weighted-average COP

during the POR, except in the following

instances in which the costs were not

appropriately quantified or valued:

1. We valued the cost of fruit

provided by an affiliated party using the

affiliate’s COP for Citrovita, and the

market price for Cambuhy, in

accordance with sections 773(f)(2) and

(3) of the Act. We adjusted the reported

cost of fresh fruit by allocating the

affiliates’ costs over only the quantity of

good oranges.

2. For Citrovita and Cambuhy, we

recalculated the offset for costs related

to tolled products to exclude certain

items which related solely to the

respondent’s own production.

3. For Citrovita, we included loss on

sale of fixed assets and other operating

expenses in the general and

administrative (G&A) rate calculation.

29932 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Notices

For Cambuhy, we included loss on the

sale of fixed assets and other operating

income in the G&A rate calculation.

4. We recalculated the net financing

expense of Citrovita and Cambuhy

based on their fiscal year financial

statements that most closely related to

the POR. We adjusted the financial

statement amounts for long-term interest

income which is not permitted as an

offset to financial expenses. (See Notice

of Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than fair Value: Certain Pasta from

Italy, 61 FR 30326, 30359 (June 14,

1996).)

For further discussion of these

adjustments, see the cost calculation

memorandum from Peter Scholl and

Sheikh M. Hannan to Neal Halper, dated

May 30, 2001.

We compared the COP to home

market prices of the foreign like

product, as required under section

773(b) of the Act, in order to determine

whether these sales had been made at

prices below the COP. On a productspecific basis, we compared the COP to

home market prices, less any applicable

movement charges, selling expenses,

and packing costs.

In determining whether to disregard

home market sales made at prices below

the COP, we examined whether such

sales were made: (1) In substantial

quantities within an extended period of

time; and (2) at prices which permitted

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time in the normal

course of trade. See section 773(b)(1) of

the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(c)(i) of

the Act, where less than 20 percent of

a company’s sales of a given product are

made at prices less than the COP, we do

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determine that

the below-cost sales were not made in

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of Citrovita’s sales of a

given product were at prices below the

COP, we found that sales of the

merchandise were made in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ within an extended period

of time, as defined in section

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. In this

case, we also determine that such sales

were not made at prices which would

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

Consequently, we disregarded the

below-cost sales in determining NV.

We found that 100 percent of

Citrovita’s home market sales within an

extended period of time were made at

prices less than the COP. Further, the

prices did not provide for the recovery

of costs within a reasonable period of

time. We therefore disregarded the

below-cost sales and compared EP to

CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of the respondent’s cost of

materials, fabrication, SG&A, financing

expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs,

adjusted as noted above. Because

Citrovita made no sales at prices above

the COP during the POR, we calculated

profit, SG&A, and financing expenses in

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii)

of the Act. Specifically, we used the

profit rate and selling expenses

calculated for Citrovita in the most

recent prior segment of this proceeding

(see the memorandum from Jason

Hoody to the File, entitled ‘‘Placement

of Business Proprietary Information

from the 1998–1999 Administrative

Review on the Record of the 1999–2000

Administrative Review of Frozen

Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil,’’

dated May 30, 2001). We used the

general and administrative expenses

and net financing expenses as

experienced during the fiscal year that

most closely corresponded to the POR.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act, we made circumstance-of-sale

adjustments to CV for differences in

credit expenses (offset by interest

revenue).

Currency Conversion

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. sales as certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank.

Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate

involves a fluctuation. It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the moving

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

to have existed, we substitute the

benchmark for the daily rate, in

accordance with established practice.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

May 1, 1999, through April 30, 2000:

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

margin

Citrovita Agro Industrial Ltda/

Cambuhy MC Industrial Ltda 15.98

The Department will disclose to

parties the calculations performed in

connection with these preliminary

results within five days of the date of

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may request a hearing within 30

days of the publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held seven days after

the date rebuttal briefs are filed.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

not later than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication of

this notice. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such case briefs,

within 120 days of the publication of

these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. We have

calculated importer-specific assessment

rates based on the ratio of the total

amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

total entered value of those sales, as

appropriate. These rates will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of particular

importers made during the POR. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Further, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of FCOJ from Brazil entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided for

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rates for Citrovita and

Cambuhy will be the rate established in

the final results of this review, except if

the rate is less than 0.50 percent and,

therefore, de minimis within the

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106, the cash

deposit will be zero; (2) for previously

reviewed or investigated companies not

listed above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, a prior review, or the lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be the rate established for the

most recent period for the manufacturer

of the merchandise; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 1.96

percent, the all others rate established in

the LTFV investigation.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Notices 29933

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice 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.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: May 30, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–13957 Filed 6–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 053001B]

South Atlantic 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 South Atlantic Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

hold meetings of its Scientific &

Statistical Committee, Shrimp

Committee, Executive Committee,

Personnel Committee and the Marine

Protected Areas Committee. The

Council will also hold joint meetings of

the Mackerel Committee and Advisory

Panel and a joint meeting of the

Controlled Access Committee and the

Rock Shrimp Advisory Panel. Public

comment periods will be held during

some of the meetings. There will also be

a full Council Session. A Social Science

Workshop will be held as part of the

meeting.

DATES: The meetings will be held in

June 2001. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for specific dates and

times.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at

the Radisson Ponce de Leon Conference

Resort Hotel, 4000 U.S. Highway 1

North, St. Augustine, FL 32095;

Telephone: 904–824–2821, FAX: 904–

824–8254. Copies of the documents are

available from Kim Iverson, Public

Information Officer, and South Atlantic

Fishery Management Council.

Council Address: South Atlantic

Fishery Management Council, One

Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston,

SC 29407–4699.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Iverson, Public Information Officer;

telephone: 843–571–4366; fax: 843–

769–4520; email: kim.iverson@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Dates

1. Social Science Workshop: June 17,

2001, 1:30–5:30 p.m.

A Social Science Workshop will be

held in order to hold discussion on

social issues as they relate to the

following: New Social Impact

Assessment Guidelines from the

National Marine Fisheries Service,

implementation/evaluation of Marine

Protected Areas in the South Atlantic

and a review of the current limited entry

program in the South Atlantic Snapper

Grouper fishery.

2. Scientific & Statistical Committee

Meeting: June 18, 2001, 8:30 a.m.–12

Noon and 1:30–5 p.m.

The Scientific & Statistical Committee

will meet to review and comment on the

following; Shrimp Amendment 5 (rock

shrimp limited access), Economic Cost

& Returns Study, Census Study, Marine

Protected Areas public scoping

document, Snapper Grouper

Amendment 13 (list of options), the

Snapper Grouper Assessment Group

Report and final guidelines for

economic analysis. The Committee will

also address mackerel issues including

the 2001 stock assessment, framework

action, Amendment 15 and Gulf Council

actions relative to the Tortugas

Sanctuary and charter vessel permits.

3. Joint Mackerel Committee and

Advisory Panel Meeting: June 19, 2001,

8:30 a.m.-12 noon and 1:30–3:30 p.m.

The Mackerel Committee will meet

jointly with the Mackerel Advisory

Panel to discuss potential framework

actions, review the Amendment 15

options paper, review Gulf Council

actions relative to the Tortugas

Sanctuary (Amendment 13) and review

the Gulf Council’s actions on the

moratorium on charter vessel permits

(Amendment 14).

4. Shrimp Committee Meeting: June

19, 2001, 3:30–5 p.m.

The Shrimp Committee will meet to

discuss language and/or format

modifications to the ‘‘Bycatch

Reduction Device Testing Protocol

Manual’’ and develop modifications to

the protocol manual if appropriate.

Public Hearings: June 19, 2001, 6 p.m.

Public hearings will be held

beginning at 6 p.m. in the order

indicated regarding the following issues:

Amendment 5 to the Rock Shrimp

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (rock

shrimp limited access); Amendment 13

to the Mackerel FMP and Spiny Lobster

Amendment 7 (Gulf Council actions

relative to the Tortugas Sanctuary in the

Gulf of Mexico); and Amendment 14 to

the Mackerel FMP (Gulf Council actions

on a moratorium on charter vessel

permits in the Gulf of Mexico.

Documents regarding these issues are

available through the Council office (see

ADDRESSES).

5. Executive Committee Meeting: June

20, 2001, 8:30–9:30 a.m.

The Executive Committee will meet to

review Council activities and establish

priorities for the remainder of 2001.

6. Personnel Committee Meeting: June

20, 2001, 9:30–10:30 a.m.

The Personnel Committee will meet

in a closed session to discuss the

Executive Director’s recommendations

for additional staff positions.

7. Joint Controlled Access Committee

and Rock Shrimp Advisory Panel: June

20, 2001, 10:30 a.m.–12 noon and 1:30–

5 p.m.

The Joint Controlled Access

Committee and Rock Shrimp Advisory

Panel will meet to review public hearing

comments on Amendment 5 to the Rock

Shrimp FMP (limited access) and formal

comments from the National Marine

Fisheries Service. The Committee and

Advisory Panel will discuss and

develop recommendations regarding

Amendment 5 to the Rock Shrimp FMP.

8. Joint Controlled Access Committee

and Rock Shrimp Advisory Panel: June

21, 2001, 8:30 a.m.–10:30 a.m.

The Committee and Advisory Panel

will continue to discuss and develop

recommendations regarding

Amendment 5 to the Rock Shrimp FMP.

9. Marine Protected Area Committee:

June 21, 2001, 10:30 a.m.-12 noon and

1:30–5 p.m.

The Marine Protected Area Committee

will meet to hear an update on the

Memorandum Of Agreement (MOU)

with Gray’s Reef Marine Sanctuary,

review the results of scoping meeting

and other comments/recommendations,

hear a report on the advisory panel

meeting and their recommendations,

develop committee recommendations

and discuss the timing of work for 2001

and 2002.

10. Council Session: June 22, 2001,

8:30 a.m.–4 p.m.

From 8:30–8:45 a.m., the Council will

have a Call to Order, introductions and

roll call adoption of the agenda, and