Presidential Documents. Notice of proposed rulemaking

21,521 words·~98 min read·/register/2006/07/17/06-6252

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

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Notice No. 60] RIN 1513-AB22 Proposed Establishment of the Snake River Valley Viticultural Area (2005R-463P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to establish the 8,263-square mile “Snake River Valley” viticultural area in southwestern Idaho and southeastern Oregon.

We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. We invite comments on this proposed addition to our regulations. DATES: We must receive written comments on or before September 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses: • Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 60, P.O.

Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412. • 202-927-8525 (facsimile). • *nprm@ttb.gov* (e-mail). • *http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm* . An online comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site. • *http://www.regulations.gov* (Federal e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions for submitting comments). You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of the notice and comments online at *http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm* . See the **Public Participation** section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 415-271-1254.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 *et seq.* ) requires that alcohol beverage labels provide consumers with adequate information regarding product identity and prohibits the use of misleading information on those labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

(TTB)administers these regulations. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey

(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. Snake River Valley Petition The wine grape growers of the Snake River Valley in Idaho, the Idaho Grape Growers and Wine Producers Commission, and the Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor, collectively referred to as the “petitioner,” have submitted a petition to establish the 8,263-square mile Snake River Valley viticultural area. The proposed viticultural area includes Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Jerome, Owyhee, Payette, Twin Falls, and Washington Counties in southwestern Idaho and Baker and Malheur Counties in southeastern Oregon. The proposed boundary encompasses 15 wineries, 46 vineyards, and 1,107 acres of commercial vineyard production. We summarize below the supporting evidence presented with the petition. Name Evidence The petitioner provided multiple sources of “Snake River Valley” name evidence for the proposed viticultural area. References include winemaking and vineyards, agriculture, early regional exploration, and other name uses. The Fall 2001 edition of Wine Press Northwest ran an article titled “Idaho Wineries at a Glance,” which says, “At first glance, the Snake River Valley seems an idyllic place to grow grapes* * *” and continues to explain that most of the grapes are grown in the Snake River Valley area west of Boise, Idaho. The February 17, 2005, edition of Wine Press Northwest ran an article describing the Snake River Valley as a beautiful area in southwestern Idaho. The article noted that most of the Idaho wineries and vineyards are at elevations between 1,500 and 2,500 feet in the western portion of the Snake River Valley. The official Web site of the State of Idaho has a link to the history of Idaho, noting that in 1811 the Pacific Fur Company expedition explored the Snake River Valley and discovered the Boise Valley, which is within the boundary of the proposed viticultural area. An undated Sunset Magazine article, “The Snake River Valley of Idaho-Eastern Oregon,” discusses the significant agricultural production in the Snake River Valley of Idaho and eastern Oregon. The USGS maps used to identify the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area prominently identify the Snake River at the low elevations of the proposed viticultural area. The American Automobile Association Western States/Provinces map, dated February 2003 through May 2005, shows the Snake River flowing from its headwaters in Wyoming, through Utah, Idaho, and Oregon, and into Washington to where it joins the Columbia River near Pasco and Kennewick. Boundary Evidence The proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area covers portions of southwestern Idaho and southeastern Oregon. The basis for the proposed boundaries, the petitioner explains, is the extent of ancient Lake Idaho, a deep lake that filled the western part of the Snake River Valley approximately 4 million years ago. The proposed boundary line, with a maximum elevation of 1,040 meters, or 3,412 feet, surrounds the now dry, ancient Lake Idaho at the highest elevation conducive to viticulture, according to the petitioner. The Snake River Plain, a crescent-shaped belt of lava and sediment ranging from 40 to 62 miles wide, extends about 372 miles in length across southern Idaho, according to the petitioner. The geology of the western portion of the Snake River Plain, the petitioner continues, has lower elevations and a rift-bounded basin, which contrast to the higher elevations of the eastern section of the Snake River Plain. Also, the colder and drier climate of the eastern area is not conducive to successful viticulture, according to the petitioner, unlike the warmer weather and lower elevations of ancient Lake Idaho. An April 21, 1997, article, “Hydrogeologic Framework of the Boise Valley of Southwest Idaho,” by Spencer H. Wood, Department of Geosciences, Boise State University, describes the Snake River Plain as a great geologic bathtub with layers of mud sediment and interconnected layers of sand. The depth of the basin plain averages 3,500 feet but extends to 6,000 feet, according to the article. Also, in prehistoric times the ancient Lake Idaho was, in places, 800 feet deep and covered 5,000 square miles. In modern times this region is a flat, semiarid plain that is irrigated for agriculture with water from the Boise River and with ground water, according to the article. Distinguishing Features The proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area, the petitioner explains, includes a series of distinguishing features. Its topography includes elevations lower than the surrounding areas and a fault-bounded, rift basin geography, according to the petitioner. Also, the area is primarily underlain by sedimentary rock. The comparatively warm climate of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area, the petitioner adds, creates better grape-growing conditions than those in the surrounding higher elevations and the Snake River Valley in eastern Idaho. Geology The geologic history of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area, the petitioner states, includes flood basalts, northwest-trending structures, loess mantles, and outburst floods. The ancient Lake Idaho, according to the petitioner, extends 149 miles northwest to southeast, from the Oregon-Idaho State line to west of Twin Falls, Idaho, as a system of lakes and flood plains. North of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area boundary line, the petitioner explains, are Cretaceous granites of the Idaho Batholith, Eocene volcanoes, older sedimentary rocks, and volcanic flows. Also, to the south of the proposed boundary line, volcanic rocks overlie the southern extension of the granite basement. Regional Summary The petitioner includes a map of the Snake River Plain Aquifer System and information modified from the “Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Idaho, Oregon, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas HA 730-H, 1994.” The map shows that the Western Plain, which is within the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area, is underlain by aquifers in basaltic rock but mainly in unconsolidated (sedimentary) deposits. In contrast, the Eastern Plain, to the east of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area, is underlain predominantly by aquifers in Pliocene and younger basaltic rocks. The petitioner includes a second map that documents the distribution of rock types in the Pacific Northwest States, based on information taken from the same USGS Hydrologic Atlas noted above. The proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area, according to the map, is underlain primarily by sedimentary rocks, distinguishing the area from basaltic and other igneous rocks in the surrounding regions. Geography *Physical Features:* The petitioner describes the ancient Lake Idaho as the physical focus and an important distinguishing feature of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area. Historically, the ancient Lake Idaho, the petitioner continues, was a trough-like structure of lakes. The proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area boundary encircles the now dry, ancient Lake Idaho, a low elevation, fault-bounded, rift basin with a relatively flat, sedimentary bottom, according to the petitioner. The surrounding areas, beyond the proposed boundary, have a mountainous topography with generally higher elevations. *Elevation:* Low elevation, between 660 and 1,040 meters, or 2,165 and 3,412 feet, when compared to the surrounding mountains and the eastern portion of the Snake River Valley, is a significant distinguishing feature of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area, as shown on the USGS maps and described by the petitioner. Oxbow Dam, along the Snake River in Adams County, Idaho, lies at an elevation of 660 meters, or 2,165 feet, the petitioner explains, but the encircling proposed viticultural area boundary line generally adheres to an elevation of 1,040 meters, or 3,412 feet, according to the boundary outlined in the petition. The proposed boundary line deviates from its prescribed 1,040-meter elevation twice at the northernmost boundary on the McCall map and again along the western boundary of the Vale map. The petitioner explains that the 1,040-meter contour line, past the boundaries of the McCall and Vale maps, continues into regions not associated with the Snake River Valley or with viticulture. The region's viticulture, according to the petitioner, is successful between elevations of 664 and 950 meters, or 2,180 and 3,117 feet. Mountains surrounding the western Snake River Valley region exceed 7,000 feet in elevation, especially to the east of the proposed viticultural area boundary line in the Boise National Forest, as shown on the Idaho City, Idaho, USGS map. The City of Twin Falls, Idaho, about 2 1/2 miles southeast of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area's eastern boundary line, as shown on the USGS Twin Falls, Idaho, map, lies at an elevation of 3,729 feet, or about 320 feet above the proposed viticultural area boundary line. The petitioner provides three topographic profiles of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area drawn from various points of the compass. The three profiles include

(1)California Mountain, Oregon, to Bruneau, Idaho,

(2)Oreana, Idaho, to Danskin Peak, Idaho, and

(3)Marsing, Idaho, to Emmett, Idaho. The profiles show the lower elevations of the ancient Lake Idaho basin in comparison to the surrounding higher mountain elevations beyond the proposed viticultural area boundary line. Payette, Idaho, is at an elevation of about 2,300 feet in the basin, but California Mountain, Oregon, reaches a height of approximately 5,150 feet, significantly higher than the proposed viticultural area boundary line. Soils The petitioner describes the soils of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area as being diverse and not a distinguishing feature, the soils having developed in various parent material, during various time frames, and under varying climatic conditions. The soils are broadly classified as Aridsols, the petitioner adds, and no single soil series or association is dominant. Vineyards within the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area are on soils that have underlying parent material derived from weathered sediment from the ancient Lake Idaho, according to the petitioner. At the surface are loess, sand, and, in slack water areas, flood-deposited silt, the petitioner explains. Typically, vineyards in the proposed area are on very shallow soils on slopes. Climate The distinguishing climatic features of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area, the petitioner states, include precipitation, air temperature, heat-unit accumulation, and growing season length. Climatic contributing factors, the petitioner continues, include the following: the region's topography, a basin depression with surrounding mountainous terrain; the continental inland location approximately 310 miles east of the Cascade Range; and the 43 degree north latitude. The petitioner adds that the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area is in a climatic transition zone with both continental and maritime regimes. The combination of elevation and latitude of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area, the petitioner continues, creates a shorter grape-growing season than those in many other viticultural regions in the Western United States. Climatic data for the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area, often referred to as the West Snake River Valley, and for other grape-growing districts in the Western United States are noted in the climatic data table below. The petitioner used online data from 1971 to 2000 compiled and archived by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for four areas within the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area and for three viticultural regions outside of Idaho. The petitioner averaged the collected data for the four Idaho weather stations listed in the climatic data table below. The data are listed separately in the table for each station outside of Idaho, including Umpqua Valley, Oregon; Walla Walla Valley, Washington and Oregon; and Napa Valley, California, all of which are in established American viticultural areas. Elevation, Location, and Climatic Data for Four Weather Stations Within Idaho and for Three Weather Stations in Western States, Outside of Idaho [In the column headings, Elev.

(m)means elevation in meters; MAT, mean annual temperature in degrees Celsius; MAP, mean annual precipitation in millimeters; GDD, growing (Celsius) degree-days; GSL, growing season length in days; XMT, 30-year extreme minimum temperature in degrees Celsius (with event year); and CNT, degrees of continental influence (mean annual temperature range that increases as the coastal marine influence decreases, in degrees Celsius)] Weather stations in the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area: Elev.

(m)Location (lat./long.) MAT (°C) MAP

(mm)GDD GSL XMT 0°C CNT (°C) Parma Experiment Station, ID 677 43°48′ N./116°57′ W. 9.9 283 1,342 140 −32

(1990)25 Weiser, ID 722 44°15′ N./116°58′ W. 11.0 307 1,637 136 −34

(1990)27 Deer Flat Dam, ID 765 43°35′ N./116°45′ W. 11.6 258 1,626 165 −30

(1989)24 Glenns Ferry, ID 753 42°56′ N./115°19′ W. 10.5 248 1,413 125 −32

(1989)24 Averages of above four Idaho stations in WSRV 729 N/A 10.8 274 1,504 142 N/A 25 Other Western Viticultural Areas (Reporting Station): Umpqua Valley (Roseburg, OR) 128 43°2′ N./123°36′ W. 13.0 855 1,484 218 3

(1989)15 Walla Walla Valley (Walla Walla, WA) 357 46°5′ N./118°28′ N. 12.3 530 1,715 206 −11

(1985)23 Napa Valley (Napa, CA) 18 38°28′ N./122°27′ W. 15.0 672 1,753 259 14

(1990)11 *Precipitation:* The proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area is a semiarid desert with minimal summer precipitation, the petitioner explains. The proposed viticultural area has a mean annual precipitation of 10 to 12 inches, the petitioner continues, occurring mostly in winter. The low precipitation rate combines with warm weather during the growing season, the petitioner notes, and the vineyards therefore need irrigation. The Idaho weather stations within the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area, according to the petitioner, receive about half the annual precipitation of the weather stations at Umpqua Valley, Oregon; Walla Walla Valley, Washington and Oregon; and Napa Valley, California. The petitioner explains that the lower annual precipitation of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area may be partially due to the rain shadows of the Cascade, Sierra Nevada, and Owyhee mountain ranges. *Temperature:* The proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area's mean annual temperature, based on an average of the four Idaho stations monitored, is 51 degrees F, or 10.8 degrees C, according to the NCDC data. The midwinter mean temperatures are below 0 degrees C for several months, and potential vineyard damage is a hazard, the petitioner explains. The California, Oregon, and Washington weather stations listed in the climatic data table above have warmer average temperatures in winter. The differences in the extreme winter temperatures and the mean annual temperature ranges between the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area and the three weather stations monitored in California, Oregon, and Washington and Oregon show significant variations in viticultural growing conditions. The petitioner explains that the difference in winter temperatures between the colder proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area and the stations at Umpqua Valley, Oregon; and Walla Walla Valley, Washington and Oregon; and Napa Valley, California, results, to a great extent, from the higher elevation of the proposed viticultural area, which is between 660 and 1,040 meters, or 2,165 and 3,412 feet. Elevations of the other stations are Umpqua Valley, about 460 feet; Walla Walla Valley, 1,200 feet; and Napa Valley, 40 feet. Regarding the seven weather stations, four in Idaho and three in other Western States, distances from the Pacific Ocean affect the amount of moderating, marine air temperatures they receive. Oceans tend to moderate air temperatures over land; hence, a wider annual temperature range indicates a greater degree of continental influence, or distance from an ocean. The proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area and the Walla Walla Valley both have, as a measure of continental influence, mean annual temperature ranges of about 25 degrees C. In comparison, the Umpqua Valley and the Napa Valley, both of which are closer to the Pacific Ocean and are at low elevations, have a smaller mean annual temperature range—about 15 degrees C. The temperatures of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area, according to the petitioner, rise rapidly during the growing season, from June through August. The Umpqua Valley in Oregon and the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area have similar, annual, total growing degree-days, as shown in the climatic data table above; but, they have between 200 and 250 fewer heat units than the Walla Walla Valley, Washington and Oregon, and the Napa Valley, California. Each degree that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees F, which is the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth, is counted as 1 degree-day (see “General Viticulture,” Albert J. Winkler, University of California Press, 1975). The proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area growing season length correlates to the frost-free period from about May 10 to September 29 annually, according to the petitioner. The total measurement of annual viticultural growth is between 64 and 117 days less than in the Walla Walla Valley, Washington and Oregon; Umpqua Valley, Oregon; and Napa Valley, California, viticultural areas. Boundary Description See the narrative boundary description of the petitioned-for viticultural area in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this notice. Maps The petitioner provided the required maps, and we list them below in the proposed regulatory text. Impact on Current Wine Labels Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. If we establish this proposed viticultural area, its name, “Snake River Valley”, will be recognized under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3) as a name of viticultural significance. The text of the new regulation would clarify this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using “Snake River Valley” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin. On the other hand, we do not believe that any single part of the proposed viticultural area name standing alone, such as “Snake” or “Snake River”, would have viticultural significance if the new area is established. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text set forth in this document specifies only the full “Snake River Valley” name as a term of viticultural significance for purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations. For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin a viticultural area name or other term specified as being viticulturally significant in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible to use the viticultural area name or other term as an appellation of origin and that name or term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name or other term appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Accordingly, if a new label or a previously approved label uses the name “Snake River Valley” for a wine that does not meet the 85 percent standard, the new label will not be approved, and the previously approved label will be subject to revocation, upon the effective date of the approval of the Snake River Valley viticultural area. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Public Participation Comments Invited We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether we should establish the proposed viticultural area. We are also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments. TTB is particularly interested in comments on the appropriateness of the proposed east boundary line, since the Snake River Valley, according to the Geographic Names Information System, extends into southeastern Idaho. The petitioner explains that the region east of Twin Falls, Idaho, is excluded, based on its being at higher elevations and having a colder, drier winter climate that could result in severe annual vineyard damage. The petitioner also explains that current place name recognition for the Snake River Valley is predominantly within southwestern Idaho and southeastern Oregon, the region of the proposed viticultural area. In this respect, we are interested in knowing whether an alternative name, such as West Snake River Valley, would better meet the name-evidence requirement of 27 CFR 9.3(b). Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area on wine labels that include the words “Snake River Valley” as discussed above under “Impact on Current Wine Labels,” we are particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the commenter should describe the nature of that conflict, including any negative economic impact that approval of the proposed viticultural area will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. We are also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid any conflicts, for example by adopting a modified or different name for the viticultural area. Although TTB believes that only the full “Snake River Valley” name should be considered to have viticultural significance upon establishment of the proposed new viticultural area, we also invite comments from those who believe that “Snake” or “Snake River” standing alone would have viticultural significance upon establishment of the area. Comments in this regard should include documentation or other information supporting the conclusion that use of “Snake” or “Snake River” on a wine label could cause consumers and vintners to attribute to the wine in question the quality, reputation, or other characteristic of wine made from grapes grown in the proposed Snake River Valley viticultural area. Submitting Comments Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit comments in one of five ways: • *Mail:* You may send written comments to TTB at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. • *Facsimile:* You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to 202-927-8525. Faxed comments must—

(1)Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;

(2)Contain a legible, written signature; and

(3)Be no more than five pages long. This limitation assures electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages. • *E-mail:* You may e-mail comments to *nprm@ttb.gov* . Comments transmitted by electronic mail must—

(1)Contain your e-mail address;

(2)Reference this notice number on the subject line; and

(3)Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 11-inch paper. • *Online form:* We provide a comment form with the online copy of this notice on our Web site at *http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm* . Select the “Send comments via e-mail” link under this notice number. • *Federal e-rulemaking portal:* To submit comments to us via the Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for submitting comments. You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing. Confidentiality All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. Public Disclosure You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center at 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- by 11-inch page. Contact our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments. For your convenience, we will post this notice and any comments we receive on this proposal on the TTB Web site. We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the TTB Information Resource Center. To access the online copy of this notice and the submitted comments, visit *http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm* . Select the “View Comments” link under this notice number to view the posted comments. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. Proposed Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend title 27, chapter 1, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Subpart C is amended by adding a new § 9.__ to read as follows: § 9. Snake River Valley.

(a)*Name.* The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Snake River Valley”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Snake River Valley” is a term of viticultural significance.

(b)*Approved maps.* The appropriate maps for determining the boundary of the Snake River Valley viticultural area are 14 United States Geological Survey 1:100,000 scale, metric topographic maps. They are titled,

(1)Baker, Oregon-Idaho, 1981;

(2)McCall, Idaho-Oregon, 1980, Photoinspected 1990;

(3)Weiser, Idaho-Oregon, 1980, Photoinspected 1990;

(4)Boise, Idaho-Oregon, 1981;

(5)Idaho City, Idaho, 1982;

(6)Murphy, Idaho, 1986;

(7)Mountain Home, Idaho, 1990;

(8)Fairfield, Idaho, 1978;

(9)Twin Falls, Idaho, 1979;

(10)Glenns Ferry, Idaho, 1992;

(11)Triangle, Idaho, 1990;

(12)Mahogany Mountain, Idaho, 1978;

(13)Vale, Oregon-Idaho; 1993; and

(14)Brogan, Oregon-Idaho, 1980

(c)*Boundary.* The Snake River Valley viticultural area is located in Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Jerome, Owyhee, Payette, Twin Falls, and Washington Counties in southwestern Idaho and in Baker and Malheur Counties in southeastern Oregon. The boundary of the Snake River Valley viticultural area is as described below:

(1)The beginning point is on the Baker map in Oregon at the intersection of the 1,040-meter contour line and Interstate 84, between Pleasant Valley and Oxman in Baker County, T10S/R42E;

(2)From the beginning point proceed east following the 1,040-meter contour line along the eastern side of the Burnt River Valley, then crossing over to the Brogan map, proceed northerly along the western side of the Snake River Valley and, crossing back over to the Baker map, proceed westerly along the southern side of the Powder River Valley to the 1,040-meter contour line's intersection with the northern boundary of Baker County, T7S/R40E, on the Baker map;

(3)Proceed 7.5 miles straight east along the northern boundary of Baker County to its intersection with the 1,040-meter line east of Oregon State Road 203 and three unnamed creeks, T7S/R41E, on the Baker map;

(4)Proceed generally southeast along the 1,040-meter contour line onto the McCall map, to its intersection with the 45 degree north latitude, to the immediate west of North Creek in the Hell's Canyon National Recreation Area, T6S/R47E, on the northern border of the McCall map;

(5)Proceed straight east along the 45 degree north latitude to its intersection with the 1,040-meter contour line, to the immediate east of North Creek, T6S/R47E, on the McCall map;

(6)Follow the 1,040-meter contour line, which encircles the northern portion of McLain Gulch, to its second intersection with the 45 degree north longitude, west of the Snake River in Baker County, Oregon, T6S/R48E, on the McCall map;

(7)Proceed straight east along the 45 degree north latitude to its intersection with the 1,040-meter contour line, to east of the Snake River and Indian Creek in Adams County, Idaho, T6S/R48W, on the McCall map;

(8)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation on the McCall map, proceeding southerly on the southeast side of the Snake River, northeasterly north of the Crooked River, crossing the Crooked River, T7S/R3W, proceeding southwesterly south of the Crooked River, crossing Brownlee Creek, T16N/R4W, proceeding generally southwesterly onto the Baker map, continuing southwesterly, crossing Sturgill Creek, T15N/R6W, and Dennett Creek, T14N/R6W, proceeding onto the Brogan map, proceeding southeasterly, crossing Rock Creek, T13N/R6W, proceeding onto the Weiser map, proceeding northeasterly, north of the Mann Creek State Recreation Area, crossing Mann Creek, T13N/R5W, continuing northeasterly onto the McCall map;

(9)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation on the McCall map, proceeding northeasterly, crossing Pine Creek, T15N/R4W, and Hornet Creek, T8S/R2W, passing west of the Payette National Forest, proceeding southerly, passing east of Mesa, onto the Weiser map, proceeding southerly, crossing Crane Creek, T12N/R1W, turning westerly, rounding north of the Paddock Valley Reservoir, crossing Willow Creek, T9N/R1W, turning southerly onto the Boise map, looping southerly and northerly north of the Black Canyon Reservoir and moving back onto the Weiser map;

(10)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation on the Weiser map, proceeding northerly, crossing Squaw Creek, T12N/R1E, and then southerly, crossing Cottonweed Creek, T11N/R1E, and then southerly again onto the Boise map, rounding south of South Mountain, back onto the Weiser map, proceeding northeasterly north of the Payette River, crossing the North Fork Payette River, T10N/R3E, then proceeding southwesterly south of the Payette River, onto the Boise map, proceeding generally southerly, crossing Cartwright Creek, T6N/R2E, and proceeding westerly and southeasterly towards Lucky Peak Lake, and then turning northward onto the Idaho City map;

(11)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation on the Idaho City map, proceeding northerly, crossing Grimes and Mores Creek, T5N/R4E, and then proceeding southerly to Lucky Peak Lake, turning northeasterly north of the Lucky Peak Lake, Arrowrock Reservoir, and Middle Fork Boise River to T4N/R7E, crossing the Middle Fork Boise River and proceeding southwesterly south of the Middle Fork Boise River, to the South Fork Boise River, crossing the South Fork Boise River, T2N/R6E, proceeding onto the Boise map proceeding southwesterly south of Lucky Peak Lake onto the Murphy map;

(12)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation southeasterly on the Murphy map to the Mountain Home map, proceeding southeasterly, crossing Canyon Creek, passing north of Mountain Home Reservoir, crossing King Hill Creek, onto the Fairfield map, proceeding easterly, crossing Clover Creek, T4S/R13E, proceeding southerly onto the Twin Falls map;

(13)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation on the Twin Falls map, proceeding southeasterly to the Snake River, T9S/R14E, following north of the Snake River and crossing at T10S/R18E, northeast of Twin Falls, proceeding westerly south of the Snake River to the Salmon River, following east of the Salmon River and crossing at T10S/R13E, proceeding northerly west of the Salmon River and the Hagerman Wildlife Management Area, proceeding west onto the Glenns Ferry map;

(14)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation on the Glenns Ferry map, proceeding generally west to Rosevear Gulch, turning south between Rosevear Gulch and Pilgrim Gulch, near Deadman Creek, heading northwesterly, continuing through the Bruneau Desert, crossing Hole Creek in Pot Canyon and proceeding to Bruneau Canyon, proceeding southeasterly east of Bruneau Canyon, crossing Bruneau Canyon, T10S/R7E, proceeding west of Bruneau Canyon then west onto the Triangle map;

(15)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation on the Triangle map, heading northwesterly, crossing Shoofly Creek and Alder Creek, T6S/R1W, onto the Murphy map, continuing northwesterly to Sinker Creek, crossing Sinker Creek, T4S/R2W, continuing northwesterly to Jump Creek, crossing Jump Creek, T1N/R5W, proceeding northwesterly onto the Boise map, crossing its southwestern corner, T2N/R5W, onto the Mahogany Mountain map;

(16)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation onto the Mahogany Mountain map, proceeding westerly onto the Vale map, generally northwesterly then southwesterly onto the Mahogany Mountain map, proceeding southwest, west, and generally north onto the Vale map, passing through Succor Creek State Recreational Area, returning to the Mahogany Mountain map, and, passing east of McIntyre Ridge, crossing Succor Creek, T1N/R46E, proceeding northerly back onto the Vale map;

(17)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation on the Vale map, proceeding northerly east of Owyhee Ridge and Long Draw to north of Lake Owyhee, southwesterly and southerly south of Lake Owyhee onto the Mahogany Mountain map, southwesterly south of Lake Owyhee, the Owyhee River, and Owyhee Canyon, crossing Owyhee Canyon at T29S/R41E, proceeding northerly west of Owyhee Canyon, northeasterly west of Owyhee River and Owyhee Reservoir, and northerly onto the Vale map;

(18)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation on the Vale map, proceeding generally northerly to T20S/R42E, southwesterly east of Cottonwood Creek, crossing Cottonwood Creek, T22S/R40E, proceeding north to the Malheur River, following the Malheur River westerly to the intersection of the 1,040-meter contour line and the 118 degree longitude in Malheur County, Oregon, T21S/R38E, on the western border of the Vale map;

(19)Proceed straight north along the 118 degree longitude to its intersection with the 1,040 meter contour line, north of the Malheur River, T20S/R38E, proceeding easterly north of the Malheur River to Hog Creek, crossing Hog Creek, T20S/R40E, and proceeding northerly on the Vale map;

(20)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation, crossing onto the Brogan map, proceeding easterly, northerly, and westerly to and around Malheur Reservoir, T14S/R41E, proceeding easterly to Cottonwood Gulch then northerly to Dixie Creek, crossing Dixie Creek, T12S/RR41E, proceeding easterly and northerly onto the Baker map;

(21)Continue following the 1,040-meter contour line in a clockwise rotation on the Baker map, proceeding westerly south of the Burnt River, crossing the Burnt River, T10S/R41E, proceeding easterly north of the Burnt River to Gravel Pits, then northerly, returning to the beginning point. Signed: June 29, 2006. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-11078 Filed 7-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Notice No. 61] RIN 1513-AB23 Proposed Expansion of the Alexander Valley Viticultural Area (2005R-501P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to expand the Alexander Valley viticultural area in Sonoma County, California, by 1,300 acres along its northwestern boundary line. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. We invite comments on this proposed amendment to our regulations. DATES: We must receive written comments on or before September 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses: • Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 61, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412. • 202-927-8525 (facsimile). • *nprm@ttb.gov* (e-mail). • *http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm.* An online comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site. • *http://www.regulations.gov* (Federal e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions for submitting comments). You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of the notice and comments online at *http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm.* See the **Public Participation** section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 *et seq.* ) requires that alcohol beverage labels provide consumers with adequate information regarding product identity and prohibits the use of misleading information on those labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

(TTB)administers these regulations. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey

(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. Alexander Valley Viticultural Area Expansion Petition Patrick Shabram of Shabram Consulting, with the support of vineyard owner Anthony Martorana, proposes a 1,300-acre expansion of the Alexander Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.53) along the current diagonal northwestern boundary line. The expansion would result in a viticultural area of 67,710 acres. The proposed expansion area starts 1 mile south-southwest of Cloverdale and continues south for another 2 miles, according to the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map and written boundary description submitted by the petitioner. The shape of the proposed expansion area resembles a triangle with one side running along the Alexander Valley viticultural area's existing diagonal northwestern boundary line. The Seven Arches Vineyards, according to the petitioner, straddles that diagonal northwestern boundary line, with approximately 10 acres outside of the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area. The proposed expansion area, the petitioner continues, would incorporate into the Alexander Valley viticultural area all of Seven Arches Vineyards and the entire 20 acres of Icaria Vineyards, both of which are located along Hiatt Road and Icaria Creek. Another vineyard, Jeke Vineyards, lies immediately inside the existing boundary line, according to a petition map outlining the vineyards of the area. The table below explains the relationship of these three vineyards to the existing diagonal northwestern boundary line of the Alexander Valley viticultural area. Vineyard name (Icaria Creek and Hiatt Road areas) Vineyard location Jeke Vineyards 1/10 mile inside of the boundary line. Seven Arches Vineyards Straddles the boundary line. Icaria Vineyards 4/10 mile outside of the boundary line. We summarize below the evidence presented in the petition in support of the proposed expansion of the Alexander Valley viticultural area. Name Evidence The proposed expansion area, according to the petitioner, is historically identified with Cloverdale, a town located at the northern end of the Alexander Valley viticultural area. In “History of the Sonoma Viticultural District,” by Ernest P. Peninou, Nomis Press, 1998, pages 186-187, it is noted that Parker Vineyards was established in 1890 in the proposed expansion area. Mr. Peninou identifies Parker Vineyards as a part of the viticultural history of Cloverdale. The petitioner explains that vineyards in the Cloverdale area, except for the two vineyards in the proposed expansion area, lie within the original boundaries of the Alexander Valley viticultural area. An article entitled “The Early Wineries of the Cloverdale Area,” by William A. Cordtz, Ph.D., ran in the March/April 1985 edition of Wine West; the article states that grape-growing started in Cloverdale before other areas of Alexander Valley. It explains that viticulture in the upper Alexander Valley was centered around Cloverdale and flourished between 1880 and Prohibition. Also, the Cloverdale Reveille, a local area newspaper, ran articles about grape-growing and in 1878 reported prices of local grapes at $8 per ton. Shortly after the establishment of the original viticultural area, the petitioner states, some wine industry members erroneously believed that the proposed expansion area already lay inside the Alexander Valley viticultural area boundary. As an example, the petitioner states that Jade Mountain Vineyards labeled a 1985 Icaria Vineyards wine with the Alexander Valley viticultural area name, while a map submitted with the petition shows Icaria Vineyards as lying within the proposed expansion area. Boundary Evidence The established Alexander Valley viticultural area's diagonal, northwestern boundary line trends northwest-southeast. The line connects section 24, T. 11 N., R. 11 W. to the map point at 38°45′ latitude and 123°00′ longitude in section 5, T. 10 N., R. 10 W., of the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map. When the original Alexander Valley viticultural area was proposed (see T.D. ATF-187, 49 FR 42724, October 24, 1984), several petitioning groups proposed differing boundaries for the proposed viticultural area. Ultimately, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), TTB's predecessor, determined that the Alexander Valley viticultural area's boundary should encompass the area from southeast of Healdsburg to north of Cloverdale in Sonoma County. The proposed westerly expansion area, according to the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map, is approximately 1 mile south-southwest of Cloverdale. The petitioner provided a map of the Alexander Valley viticultural area published by the Sonoma County Grape Growers Association in 1998. The map shows the current viticultural area boundaries and displays the vineyards within the proposed expansion area with the same shade of dark green used for the vineyards within the current viticultural area boundary. In contrast, the vineyards outside the existing boundary carry a significantly lighter shade of green. The petitioner contends that the wine industry used the map as a geographic analytical tool to group all vineyards on the floor and the lower slopes of the Alexander Valley. Icaria Creek and several of its tributaries, as part of the Alexander Valley watershed, run through the proposed expansion area and drain into the Russian River. In an interview in the Healdsburg Tribune of December 7, 1979, Robert Young observed that there is only one watershed in the entire Alexander Valley. His observation, according to the petitioner, supports the expansion petition because the expansion area also falls within that watershed. Distinguishing Features The petitioner provides information about distinguishing features and evidence to document that the proposed expansion area is similar in topography, elevation, soils, and climate to the northwestern region of the Alexander Valley viticultural area, inside the existing boundary line along Hiatt Road and Icaria Creek. The petitioner explains that the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area and the proposed expansion area, located on opposite sides of the diagonal boundary line, have similar distinguishing features. The topography, including range in elevation and the flood plains along Icaria Creek, water resources, soils, and climate combine to create a similar viticultural environment on both sides of the diagonal boundary line, according to the petitioner. Topography The petitioner describes the similar topographic features scattered throughout the Icaria Creek area on both sides of the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area's diagonal northwestern boundary line. The proposed expansion area is at elevations of 360 feet on the flood plain along Icaria Creek to 874 feet, according to the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map. Similar topography exists immediately east and inside the Alexander Valley viticultural area's diagonal boundary line. Elevations there, as noted on the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map, range from a low of 320 feet on the flood plain along Icaria Creek to a high of 884 feet. Icaria Creek, and its tributaries, run through both the east and the west sides of the Alexander Valley viticultural area's diagonal boundary line to the Russian River, as shown on the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map. Also, Hiatt Road meanders along Icaria Creek and some of its tributaries on both sides of the diagonal boundary line. The petitioner explains that the terrain west of the proposed expansion area becomes increasingly steep and mountainous and that elevations climb to some 1,600 feet, as shown on the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map. The mountainous terrain contrasts with the lower elevations and the gentle valley landscape of the Alexander Valley region shown on the map. The petitioner adds that the westerly mountainous terrain creates an unsuitable environment for viticulture. The vineyards in the proposed expansion area generally lie on the lower, flatter terrain of the flood plain along Icaria Creek, according to the diagrams on the map in the petition. The elevations generally range between 350 and 450 feet, but the southernmost part of the Seven Arches Vineyards reaches 590 feet. Jeke Vineyards, which is within the Alexander Valley viticultural area's western boundary line, lies between 350 and 380 feet of elevation on the flood plain along Icaria Creek, the petitioner states. Thus, Jeke Vineyards, which is immediately inside the east side of the diagonal boundary line, and the Icaria and Seven Arches Vineyards, which are in the proposed expansion area on the west side of the diagonal boundary line, do not vary substantially in their overall elevations and their relative locations on the flood plain. Soils The petitioner explains that the distinguishing soils in the Icaria Creek and Hiatt Road areas in the proposed expansion area include the Hugo-Josephine-Laughlin association. According to the Soil Survey of Sonoma County, California, issued in 1972 by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, the soils in this association are well drained, gently sloping to very steep gravelly loam. This soil association, according to the petitioner, is common on the western slopes of the Alexander Valley, including much of the existing viticultural area. The predominant soil associations in the Alexander Valley viticultural area, the petitioner continues, are the Yolo-Cortina-Pleasanton, Goulding-Toomes-Guenoc, and Hugo-Josephine-Laughlin associations, which are also in the proposed expansion area. Climate The petitioner states that the climate of the proposed expansion area closely reflects that of the area to its immediate east and inside the viticultural area boundary line. Both areas, the petitioner states, are similar in vegetative cover, elevation, topographic features, and latitudinal coordinates. The entire Alexander Valley viticultural area has a coastal warm climate type, according to the model Climate Types of Sonoma County, originally developed by Robert Sisson and shown on the 1986 Vossen map, provided with the petition. This model uses the total daily hours of temperatures between 70 and 90 degrees F. The petitioner explains that the temperature range is the most significant factor for photosynthesis in the grapevines. Climatic variations have not been recorded along Icaria Creek and Hiatt Road between the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area and the proposed expansion area. However, the manager of the Seven Arches Vineyards writes that along Hiatt Road, on both sides of the diagonal boundary line of the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area, the climate is similar, if not identical. The petitioner explains that the climatic variations in inland northern Sonoma County result from coastal, or marine, influences to the west. Thus, in northern Alexander Valley, which is located in inland northern Sonoma County, climatic variations are less because of the diminished coastal influence on the region. Boundary Description See the changes to the narrative boundary description for the petitioned-for viticultural area expansion in the proposed regulatory text amendment published at the end of this notice. Maps The petitioner provided the required maps, which are already listed in the § 9.53 regulatory text. Impact on Current Wine Labels The proposed expansion of the Alexander Valley viticultural area will not affect currently approved wine labels. The approval of this proposed expansion may allow additional vintners to use “Alexander Valley” as an appellation of origin on their wine labels. Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin the name of a viticultural area specified in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). In addition, regulations regarding the use of a brand name containing a viticultural area name on a label are found in 27 CFR 4.39(i). Public Participation Comments Invited We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether we should expand the Alexander Valley viticultural area as described above. We are especially interested in comments concerning the similarity of the proposed expansion area to the currently existing Alexander Valley viticultural area. Please provide any available specific information in your comments about the proposed expansion area's name, proposed boundaries, or distinguishing features. Submitting Comments Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit comments in one of five ways: • *Mail:* You may send written comments to TTB at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. • *Facsimile:* You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to 202-927-8525. Faxed comments must—

(1)Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;

(2)Contain a legible, written signature; and

(1)Contain your e-mail address;

(2)Reference this notice number on the subject line; and

(3)Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 11-inch paper. • *Online form:* We provide a comment form with the online copy of this notice on our Web site at *http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm.* Select the “Send comments via e-mail” link under this notice number. • *Federal e-rulemaking portal:* To submit comments to us via the Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for submitting comments. You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing. Confidentiality All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. Public Disclosure You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center at 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- by 11-inch page. Contact our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments. We will post this notice and any comments we receive on this proposal on the TTB Web site. All name and address information submitted with comments will be posted, including e-mail addresses. We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the TTB Information Resource Center. To access the online copy of this notice and the submitted comments, visit *http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm.* Select the “View Comments” link under this notice number to view the posted comments. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. Proposed Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend title 27, chapter 1, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Section 9.53 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5), redesignating paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(44) as (c)(9) through (c)(47), and adding new paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(8) to read as follows: § 9.53 Alexander Valley.

(c)* * *

(5)Then straight south along the eastern boundary line of Section 25, to its intersection with Kelly Road, a medium-duty road, T. 11 N., R. 11 W.;

(6)Then southwest along Kelly Road to its intersection with the northern boundary line of Section 36, T. 11 N., R. 11 W.;

(7)Then straight south to its intersection with 38°45′ N. latitude along the southern border of the Cloverdale Quadrangle map, T. 10 N., R. 11 W. and R. 10 W.;

(8)Then straight east to its intersection with the 123°00′ E. longitude at the southeastern corner of the Cloverdale Quadrangle map, T. 10 N., R. 10 W.; Signed: June 28, 2006. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-11080 Filed 7-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P 71 136 Monday, July 17, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 11, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(FSA)administers certain farm programs in which the payments are subject and not subject to the established payment limitations. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 to provide for a $40,000 limitation per crop year on the direct payments; $65,000 per crop year on counter-cyclical payments, $75,000 per crop year on the amount of marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments a person may receive; and apply the payment eligibility provisions of the 1985 Act to payments made under the direct and counter-cyclical payment program contract, marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments. FSA will collect information using several forms. *Need and Use of the Information:* FSA will collect information to determine the eligibility for payment and the number of “persons” for the application of the payment limitation required for the respective program. Information is captured on different forms depending upon the nature and the type of program participant's farming operation. Without the data, FSA cannot determine whether the individual or the entity requesting program benefits is eligible and or in compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of payment eligibility and payment limitation. FSA and the National Appeals Division also use the information on review in the event an appeal is filed by the producer regarding any of the determinations. *Description of Respondents:* Farms; Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 162,142. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion; Annually; Other (as needed). *Total Burden Hours:* 266,364. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-11201 Filed 7-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 11, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Risk Management *Title:* Organic Price Project. *OMB Control Number:* 0563-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* This collection is in support of a partnership agreement between the Risk Management Agency and the Rodale Institute, as authorized under section 522(d) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act. The agreement with the Rodale Institute will address the development and implementation of a price reporting system for producers of selected organic commodities. Since early 2003, the Rodale Institute has posted prices for around 40 organic products in a file called the “Organic Price Index”. *Need and Use of the Information:* The price information will be collected weekly by e-mail, telephone, fax, and from Web sites in whatever form is customarily used by the distributor to post prices. The prices are collected from wholesale distributors, sales agencies, and cooperatives that specialize in the marketing of organic products. This information will be disseminated and posted on an existing Web site maintained by the Rodale Institute to assist organic producers and allied interests in price discovery. Fruit and vegetable prices have been collected from organic wholesalers operating in the vicinity of the Seattle and Boston wholesale produce markets. Prices of identical conventional products reported by Agricultural Marketing Service in these markets are also posted for comparison. As part of this project, prices will be collected for a wider array of organic products and in 13 additional market areas. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; farms; individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 60. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Weekly. *Total Burden Hours:* 53. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-11202 Filed 7-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 11, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service *Title:* Specimen Submission. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0090. *Summary of Collection:* Under the authority of Title 21, U.S.C., the Secretary of Agriculture is permitted to prevent, control and eliminate domestic diseases such as tuberculosis, as well as to take actions to prevent and to manage exotic diseases such as hog cholera, African swine fever, and other foreign diseases. Disease prevention cannot be accomplished without the existence of an effective disease surveillance program, which includes disease testing, by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. Information is collected on each animal specimen being submitted for analysis by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) using form VS 10-4, “Specimen Submission”. *Need and Use of the Information:* Using APHIS form VS 10-4, State or Federal veterinarians, accredited veterinarians, or other State and Federal representatives will document the collection and submission of specimens for laboratory analysis. The form identifies the individual animal from which the specimen is taken as well as the animal's herd or flock; the type of specimen submitted, and the purpose of submitting the specimen. Without the information contained on this form, personnel at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories would have no way of identifying or processing the specimens being sent to them for analysis. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local or Tribal Government; Farms. *Number of Respondents:* 14,000. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 7,000. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-11203 Filed 7-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Food Distribution Program: Value of Donated Foods from July 1, 2006 Through June 30, 2007 AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the national average value of donated foods or, where applicable, cash in lieu of donated foods, to be provided in school year 2007 (July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007) for each lunch served by schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and for each lunch and supper served by institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). DATES: *Effective Date:* July 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillie F. Ragan, Assistant Branch Chief, Policy Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302 or telephone

(703)305-2662. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos. 10.550, 10.555, and 10.558 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.) This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to Office of Management and Budget review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice has been determined to be exempt under Executive Order 12866. National Average Minimum Value of Donated Foods for the Period July 1, 2006 Through June 30, 2007 This notice implements mandatory provisions of sections 6(c) and 17(h)(1)(B) of the National School Lunch Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1755(c) and 1766(h)(1)(B)). Section 6(c)(1)(A) of the Act establishes the national average value of donated food assistance to be given to States for each lunch served in NSLP at 11.00 cents per meal. Pursuant to section 6(c)(1)(B), this amount is subject to annual adjustments on July 1 of each year to reflect changes in a three-month average value of the Price Index for Foods Used in Schools and Institutions for March, April, and May each year (Price Index). Section 17(h)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the same value of donated foods (or cash in lieu of donated foods) for school lunches shall also be established for lunches and suppers served in CACFP. Notice is hereby given that the national average minimum value of donated foods, or cash in lieu thereof, per lunch under NSLP (7 CFR Part 210) and per lunch and supper under CACFP (7 CFR Part 226) shall be 16.75 cents for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. The Price Index is computed using five major food components in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index (cereal and bakery products; meats, poultry and fish; dairy products; processed fruits and vegetables; and fats and oils). Each component is weighted using the relative weight as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The value of food assistance is adjusted each July 1 by the annual percentage change in a three-month average value of the Price Index for March, April and May each year. The three-month average of the Price Index decreased by 3.5 percent from 155.03 for March, April and May of 2005 to 149.56 for the same three months in 2006. When computed on the basis of unrounded data and rounded to the nearest one-quarter cent, the resulting national average for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 will be 16.75 cents per meal. This is a decrease of 0.75 cents from the school year 2006 (July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006) rate. Authority: Sections 6(c)(1)(A) and (B), 6(e)(1), and 17(h)(1)(B) of the National School Lunch Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1755(c)(1)(A) and

(B)and 6(e)(1), and 1766(h)(1)(B)). Dated: July 11, 2006. Jerome A. Lindsay, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-11214 Filed 7-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-588-824) Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Rescission, In Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the antidumping (“AD”) administrative review of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“CORE”) from Japan. The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Preliminary Intent to Rescind, In part* , 71 FR 27450 (May 11, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). This review covers imports of CORE from Kawasaki Steel Corporation (“Kawasaki”) and Nippon Steel Corporation (“Nippon Steel”). We have found that there were no entries of CORE produced by Kawasaki. Therefore, we are rescinding this review with respect to Kawasaki. Because Nippon Steel chose not to participate in this review, we are applying adverse facts available to Nippon Steel. The Department received no comments concerning our preliminary results; therefore, our final results remain unchanged from our preliminary results. The final results are listed in the section “ *Final Results of Review* ” below. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett, George McMahon, or James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-4161,

(202)482-1167, or

(202)482-3965, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 11, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the AD order on CORE from Japan. *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR 27450. This review covers imports of CORE from Kawasaki and Nippon Steel during the POR, August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. We invited interested parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . We received no comments. Scope of Order The products subject to this order include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 mm, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness, or if of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more, are of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. Included in the order are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”) -- for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from the scope of the order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from the scope of the order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from the scope of the order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan* , 58 FR 44163 (Aug. 19, 1993). Exclusions due to Changed Circumstances Reviews The Department has issued the following rulings to date: Excluded from the scope of this order are imports of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: widths ranging from 10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 mm (3.94 inches); thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 mm (0.004 inches) through 0.60 mm (0.024 inches); and a coating that is from 0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 62 FR 66848 (Dec. 22, 1997). Also excluded from the scope of this order are imports of subject merchandise meeting all of the following criteria:

(1)Widths ranging from 10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 mm (3.94 inches);

(2)thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 mm (0.004 inches) through 0.60 mm (0.024 inches); and

(3)a coating that is from 0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 64 FR 14862 (Mar. 29, 1999). Also excluded from the scope of this order are:

(1)Carbon steel flat products measuring 1.84 mm in thickness and 43.6 mm or 16.1 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum, 20% tin, 1% copper, 0.3% silicon, 0.15% nickel, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys; and

(2)carbon steel flat products measuring 0.97 mm in thickness and 20 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9% to 11% tin, 9% to 11% lead, less than 1% zinc, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45% to 55% lead, 38% to 50% polytetrafluorethylene (“PTFE”), 3% to 5% molybdenum disulfide and less than 2% other materials. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 64 FR 57032 (Oct. 22, 1999). Also excluded from the scope of the order are imports of doctor blades meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, plated with nickel phosphorous, having a thickness of 0.1524 mm (0.006 inches), a width between 31.75 mm (1.25 inches) and 50.80 mm (2.00 inches), a core hardness between 580 to 630 HV, a surface hardness between 900--990 HV; the carbon steel coil or strip consists of the following elements identified in percentage by weight: 0.90% to 1.05% carbon; 0.15% to 0.35% silicon; 0.30% to 0.50% manganese; less than or equal to 0.03% of phosphorous; less than or equal to 0.006% of sulfur; other elements representing 0.24%; and the remainder of iron. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 65 FR 53983 (Sept. 6, 2000). Also excluded from the scope of the order are imports of carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel flat products measuring 1.64 mm in thickness and 19.5 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum; 10 to 15% tin; 1 to 3% lead; 0.7 to 1.3% copper; 1.8 to 3.5% silicon; 0.1 to 0.7% chromium; less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 8778 (Feb. 2, 2001). Also excluded from the scope of the order are carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications:

(1)Carbon steel flat products measuring 0.975 mm in thickness and 8.8 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%-11% tin, 9%-11% lead, maximum 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 13%-17% carbon, 13%-17% aromatic polyester, with a balance (approx. 66%-74%) of PTFE; and

(2)carbon steel flat products measuring 1.02 mm in thickness and 10.7 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%-11% tin, 9%-11% lead, less than 0.35% iron, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45%-55% lead, 3%-5% molybdenum disulfide, with a balance (approx. 40%-52%) of PTFE. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 66 FR 15075 (Mar. 15, 2001). Also excluded from this order are carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications:

(1)carbon steel coil or strip, measuring 1.93 mm or 2.75 mm (0.076 inches or 0.108 inches) in thickness, 87.3 mm or 99 mm (3.437 inches or 3.900 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 0.3% antimony, 2.5% silicon, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum; and

(2)carbon steel coil or strip, clad with aluminum, measuring 1.75 mm (0.069 inches) in thickness, 89 mm or 94 mm (3.500 inches or 3.700 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 2.5% silicon, 0.3% antimony, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 66 FR 20967 (Apr. 26, 2001). Also excluded from this order are carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, measuring a minimum of and including 1.10 mm to a maximum of and including 4.90 mm in overall thickness, a minimum of and including 76.00 mm to a maximum of and including 250.00 mm in overall width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 0.10%, manganese under 0.40%, phosphorous under 0.04%, sulfur under 0.05%, and silicon under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: under 2.51% copper, under 15.10% tin, and remainder aluminum as listed on the mill specification sheet. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 67 FR 7356 (Feb. 19, 2002). Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications:

(1)Diffusion-annealed, non-alloy nickel-plated carbon products, with a substrate of cold-rolled battery grade sheet (“CRBG”) with both sides of the CRBG initially electrolytically plated with pure, unalloyed nickel and subsequently annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and iron substrate, with the nickel plated coating having a thickness of 0-5 microns per side with one side equaling at least 2 microns; and with the nickel carbon sheet having a thickness of from 0.004” (0.10 mm) to 0.030” (0.762 mm) and conforming to the following chemical specifications (%): C ≤ 0.08; Mn ≤ 0.45; P ≤ 0.02; S ≤ 0.02; Al ≤ 0.15; and Si ≤ 0.10; and the following physical specifications: Tensile = 65 KSI maximum; Yield = 32 - 55 KSI; Elongation = 18% minimum (aim 34%); Hardness = 85 - 150 Vickers; Grain Type = Equiaxed or Pancake; Grain Size

(ASTM)= 7-12; Delta r value = aim less than 0.2; Lankford value ≥ 1.2.; and

(2)next generation diffusion-annealed nickel plate meeting the following specifications:

(a)Nickel-graphite plated, diffusion-annealed, tin-nickel plated carbon products, with a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion-annealed tin-nickel plated carbon steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of mixture of natural nickel and graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only ≥ 0.05 micrometers, nickel-graphite layer only > 0.2 micrometers, and bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers;

(b)nickel-graphite, diffusion-annealed, nickel plated carbon products, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion-annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and the iron substrate; with an additional layer of natural nickel-graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-graphite, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; nickel-graphite layer ≥ 0.5 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers;

(c)diffusion-annealed nickel-graphite plated products, which are cold-rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having the bottom side of the base metal first electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the top side of the strip then plated with a nickel-graphite composition; with the strip then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel-graphite and the iron substrate on the bottom side; with the nickel-graphite and nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers;

(d)nickel-phosphorous plated diffusion-annealed nickel plated carbon product, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and phosphorus electrolytically plated to the top side of a diffusion-annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; another layer of the natural nickel-phosphorous then electrolytically plated on the top side of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-phosphorous, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-phosphorous, nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; nickel-phosphorous layer ≥ 0.1 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers;

(e)diffusion-annealed, tin-nickel plated products, electrolytically plated with natural nickel to the top side of a diffusion-annealed tin-nickel plated cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled strip initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of natural nickel then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin-nickel combination layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only ≥ 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; and

(f)tin mill products for battery containers, tin and nickel plated on a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel; then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; then an additional layer of natural tin electrolytically plated on the top side; and again annealed to create a diffusion of the tin and nickel alloys; with the tin-nickel, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin layer ≥1 micrometer; tin layer alone ≥0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥1.0 micrometer. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 67 FR 47768 (Jul. 22, 2002). Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications:

(1)Widths ranging from 10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 mm (3.94 inches);

(2)thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 mm (0.004 inches) through 0.60 mm (0.024 inches); and

(3)a coating that is from 0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of phosphate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of phosphate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 67 FR 57208 (Sept. 9, 2002). Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications:

(1)Flat-rolled products (provided for in HTSUS subheading 7210.49.00), other than of high-strength steel, known as “ASE Iron Flash” and either:

(A)having a base layer of zinc-based zinc-iron alloy applied by hot-dipping and a surface layer of iron-zinc alloy applied by electrolytic process, the weight of the coating and plating not over 40% by weight of zinc; or

(B)two-layer-coated corrosion-resistant steel with a coating composed of

(a)a base coating layer of zinc-based zinc-iron alloy by hot-dip galvanizing process, and

(b)a surface coating layer of iron-zinc alloy by electro-galvanizing process, having an effective amount of zinc up to 40% by weight, and

(2)corrosion resistant continuously annealed flat-rolled products, continuous cast, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.06% by weight, manganese 0.20 or more but not over 0.40, phosphorus not over 0.02, sulfur not over 0.023, silicon not over 0.03, aluminum 0.03 or more but not over 0.08, arsenic not over 0.02, copper not over 0.08 and nitrogen 0.003 or more but not over 0.008; and meeting the characteristics described below:

(A)Products with one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a two-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer and a surface coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel, with total coating thickness for both layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with scanning electron microscope

(SEM)not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length;

(B)products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a four-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer; with an inner middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel, an outer middle surface coating layer of hard nickel and a topmost nickel-phosphorus-plated layer; with combined coating thickness for the four layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length;

(C)products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, luster-agent-added nickel which is not heat-treated; with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; or

(D)products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, pure nickel which is not heat-treated; with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 68 FR 19970 (Apr. 23, 2003). Also excluded from the scope of this order is merchandise meeting the following specifications:

(1)Base metal: Aluminum Killed, Continuous Cast, Carbon Steel SAE 1008,

(2)Chemical Composition: Carbon 0.08% max., Silicon 0.03% max., Manganese 0.40% max., Phosphorus 0.020% max., Sulfur 0.020% max.,

(3)Nominal thickness of 0.054 mm,

(4)Thickness tolerance minimum 0.0513 mm, maximum 0.0567 mm,

(5)Width of 600 mm or greater, and

(7)Nickel plate min. 2.45 microns per side. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, In Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan, 70 FR 2608 (Jan. 14, 2005). Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following 24 separate corrosion-resistant carbon steel coil products meeting the following specifications: *Product 1* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.625 mm to 1.655 mm in thickness and 19.3 mm to 19.7 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy containing by weight 10% or more but not more than 15% of tin, 1% or more but not more than 3% of lead, 0.7% or more but not more than 1.3% of copper, 1.8% or more but not more than 3.5% of silicon, 0.1% or more but not more than 0.7% of chromium and less than or equal to 1% of other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. *Product 2* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.955 mm to 0.985 mm in thickness and 8.6 mm to 9.0 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that contains by weight 9% or more but not more than 11% of tin, 9% or more but not more than 11% of lead, less than 0.05% phosphorus, less than 0.35% iron and less than or equal to 1% other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, with the second layer containing by weight 13% or more but not more than 17% of carbon, 13% or more but not more than 17% of aromatic polyester, and the remainder (approx. 66-74%) of PTFE. *Product 3* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.01 mm to 1.03 mm in thickness and 10.5 mm to 10.9 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that contains by weight 9% or more but not more than 11% of tin, 9% or more but not more than 11% of lead, less than 1% zinc and less than or equal to 1% other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, with the second layer containing by weight 45% or more but not more than 55% of lead, 3% or more but not more than 5% of molybdenum disulfide, and the remainder made up of PTFE (approximately 38% to 52%) and less than 2% in the aggregate of other materials. *Product 4* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in thickness and 43.4 mm to 43.8 mm or 16.1 mm to 1.65 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) clad with an aluminum alloy that contains by weight 19% to 20% tin, 1% to 1.2% copper, less than 0.3% silicon, 0.15% nickel and less than 1% in the aggregate other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. *Product 5* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.95 mm to 0.98 mm in thickness and 19.95 mm to 20 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that contains by weight 9% or more but not more than 11% of tin, 9% or more but not more than 11% of lead, less than 1% of zinc and less than or equal to 1% in the aggregate of other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, with the second layer consisting by weight of 45% or more but not more than 55% of lead, 3% or more but not more than 5% of molybdenum disulfide and with the remainder made up of PTFE (approximately 38% to 52%) and up to 2% in the aggregate of other materials. *Product 6* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.98 mm in thickness and 18.75 mm to 18.95 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper-base alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35, and other materials less than 1%; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37%, aromatic polyester 28 to 32%, and other materials less than 2% with a balance of PTFE. *Product 7* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.21 mm to 1.25 mm in thickness and 19.4 mm to 19.6 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with lining of copper base alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1%; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys. *Product 8* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.98 mm in thickness and 21.5 mm to 21.7 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper-base alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05%, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) lead 33 to 37, aromatic polyester 28 to 32 and other materials less than 2 with a balance of PTFE. *Product 9* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.99 mm in thickness and 7.65 mm to 7.85 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper-based alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) carbon 13 to 17 and aromatic polyester 13 to 17, with a balance of PTFE. *Product 10* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.955 mm to 0.985 mm in thickness and 13.6 mm to 14 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper-based alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) carbon 13 to 17, aromatic polyester 13 to 17, with a balance (approximately 66 to 74) of PTFE. *Product 11* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.2 mm to 1.24 mm in thickness; 20 mm to 20.4 mm in width; consisting of carbon steel coils (SAE 1012) with a lining of sintered phosphorus bronze alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 5.5 to 7; phosphorus 0.03 to 0.35; lead less than 1 and other non-copper materials less than 1. *Product 12* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in thickness and 43.3 mm to 43.7 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a lining of aluminum based alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight: tin 10 to 15, lead 1 to 3, copper 0.7 to 1.3, silicon 1.8 to 3.5, chromium 0.1 to 0.7 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for bearing and bushing alloys. *Product 13* Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in thickness and 24.2 mm to 24.6 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a lining of aluminum alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 10 to 15, lead 1 to 3, copper 0.7 to 1.3, silicon 1.8 to 3.5, chromium 0.1 to 0.7 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for bearing and bushing alloys. *Product 14* Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils, with thickness not less than 0.915 mm but not over 0.965 mm, width not less than 19.75 mm or more but not over 20.35 mm; with a two-layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11%, lead 9 to 11%, zinc less than 1%, other materials (other than copper) not over 1% and balance copper; the second layer consisting of lead 45 to 55%, molybdenum disulfide

(MoS2)3 to 5%, other materials not over 2%, balance PTFE. *Product 15* Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 0.915 mm or more but not over 0.965 mm; width not less than 18.65 mm or more but not over 19.25 mm; with a two-layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11%, lead 9 to 11%, zinc less than 1%, other materials (other than copper) not over 1%, balance copper; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37%, aromatic polyester 13 to 17%, other materials other than PTFE less than 2%, balance PTFE. *Product 16* Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 0.920 mm or more but not over 0.970 mm; width not less than 21.35 mm or more but not over 21.95 mm; with a two-layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11%, lead 9 to 11%, zinc less than 1%, other materials (other than copper) not over 1%, balance copper; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37%, aromatic polyester 13 to 17%, other materials (other than PTFE) less than 2%, balance PTFE. *Product 17* Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 1.80 mm or more but not over 1.85 mm, width not less than 14.7 mm or more but not over 15.3 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.5 to 4.5%, lead 21.0 to 25.0%, zinc less than 3%, iron less than 0.35%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, balance copper. *Product 18* Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 14.5 mm or more but not over 15.1 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%, lead 20 to 25%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, balance copper. *Product 19* Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 1.75 mm or more but not over 1.8 mm; width not less than 18.0 mm or more but not over 18.6 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%, lead 20 to 25%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, balance copper. *Product 20* Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 13.6 mm or more but not over 14.2 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%, lead 20 to 25%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, with a balance copper. *Product 21* Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 11.5 mm or more but not over 12.1 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%, lead 20 to 25%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, balance copper. *Product 22* Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 11.2 mm or more but not over 11.8 mm, with a lining consisting of copper 0.7 to 1.3%, tin 17.5 to 22.5%, silicon less than 0.3%, nickel less than 0.15%, other materials less than 1%, balance aluminum. *Product 23* Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 7.2 mm or more but not over 7.8 mm; with a lining consisting of copper 0.7 to 1.3%, tin 17.5 to 22.5%, silicon less than 0.3%, nickel less than 0.15%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, balance copper. *Product 24* Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.72 mm or more but not over 1.77 mm; width 7.7 mm or more but not over 8.3 mm; with a lining consisting of copper 0.7 to 1.3%, tin 17.5 to 22.5%, silicon less than 0.3%, nickel less than 0.15%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, balance copper. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, in Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan* , 70 FR 5137 (Feb. 1, 2005). Rescission, In part Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Kawasaki because the Department found no shipments of CORE by Kawasaki during the POR. *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 27451. Facts Available In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department determined that the use of adverse facts available (“AFA”) was warranted in accordance with section 776(a) and

(b)of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), with respect to Nippon Steel. *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 27456. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act states that the Department may use “facts available” if an interested party

(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department,

(B)fails to provide information in the time and manner requested,

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified. *See also* 19 CFR 351.308(a). Furthermore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may apply an adverse inference if it finds a respondent has not acted to the best of its ability in the conduct of the administrative review. Because Nippon Steel responded to the Department's questionnaire with a letter stating it would not participate in this review, we preliminarily determined that it did not cooperate to the best of its ability. *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 27456. Since the preliminary results, nothing has changed to reverse our preliminary decision regarding Nippon Steel. Further, the Department received no comment addressing the Department's preliminary results from Nippon Steel or any other interested party. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a) and

(b)of the Act, we have continued to make an adverse inference with respect to Nippon Steel by assigning to its exports of the subject merchandise a rate of 36.41 percent *ad valorem* , the margin calculated for Nippon Steel in the original less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation using information provided by Nippon Steel. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan* , 58 FR 44163 (Aug. 19, 1993) (“ *AD Orders from Japan* ”). Corroboration of Facts Available Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, a figure based on secondary information which it applies as AFA. *See also* 19 CFR 351.308(d). To be considered corroborated, the information must be found to be both reliable and relevant, and thus determined to have probative value. *See* Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870

(1994)(“SAA”), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. For the reasons explained above, we are applying as AFA the rate calculated for Nippon Steel in the LTFV investigation, 36.19 percent. *See AD Orders from Japan* 58 FR 44163. For the reasons stated in the *Preliminary Results* , 71 FR 27450, the Department finds this rate to be both reliable and relevant, and, therefore, to have probative value in accordance with the SAA. *See* SAA at 870. Neither Nippon Steel nor any other interested party submitted comments regarding the Department's preliminary corroboration analysis for purposes of the final results. Therefore, we have continued to assign to exports of the subject merchandise by Nippon Steel the rate of 36.41 percent. Final Results of Review As noted above, the Department received no comments concerning the preliminary results. As there have been no changes from or comments on the preliminary results, we are not attaching a Decision Memorandum to this **Federal Register** notice. For further details of the issues addressed in this proceeding, see the *Preliminary Results* . The final dumping margin is as follows: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan Producer/manufacturer/exporter Dumping Margin (percent) Nippon Steel 36.41 Assessment The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will direct CBP to assess the dumping rate listed above against all subject merchandise manufactured or exported by Nippon Steel, and entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for Nippon Steel will be 36.41 percent;

(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 original 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 be 36.41 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See AD Orders from Japan* , 58 FR 44163. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as final 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. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders

(APOs)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 11, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-11286 Filed 7-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-851 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of the Sixth Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 10, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission and Preliminary Results of the Sixth Administrative Review* , 70 FR 11183 (March 6, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . Based upon our analysis of the comments and information received, we made changes to certain surrogate value calculation which affect the dumping margin calculation for Raoping Yucun Canned Foods Factory (“Raoping Yucun”) in these final results. We find that certain manufacturers/exporters sold subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (“POR”). EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker, 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)482-0413. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The *Preliminary Results* in this administrative review were published on March 6, 2005. Since the *Preliminary Results* , the following events have occurred: On April, 10, 2006, Raoping Yucun submitted surrogate value information. On April 14, 2006, Raoping Yucun submitted its case brief. On April 19, 2006, the Department rejected Raoping Yucun's case brief because it contained new factual information. On April 21, 2006, Raoping Yucun submitted a revised case brief. On May 16, 2006, the Department rejected Raoping Yucun's revised case brief because it failed to remove all new factual information. On May 17, 2006, Raoping Yucun submitted a second revised case brief. Scope Of The Order The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species *Agaricus bisporus* and *Agaricus bitorquis* . “Certain Preserved Mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:

(1)All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms;

(2)all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”;

(3)dried mushrooms;

(4)frozen mushrooms; and

(5)“marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives. 1 1 On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. *See* “Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling of Request by Tak Fat, *et al* . for Exclusion of Certain Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this decision was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. *See Tak Fat v. United States* , 39C F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 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 scope of this order is dispositive. Rescission Of Review In the *Preliminary Results* , we preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Green Fresh”), which reported that it did not sell merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order during the POR. *See Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 11184. Since the issuance of the *Preliminary Results* , no party has placed evidence on the record demonstrating that Green Fresh exported subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Green Fresh. Analysis Of Comments Received All issues raised in Raoping Yucun's case brief are listed in the Appendix to this notice and are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this administrative review, and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since The Preliminary Results Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to certain surrogate value calculations that affect the margin calculation for Raoping Yucun. For a discussion of these changes, *see* the Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comments 1 and 5. Facts Available In the *Preliminary Results* , we based the dumping margins for Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Incorporated (“PHX”), Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. (“Gerber”) and Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd. (“Guangxi Yulin”) on total adverse facts available (“AFA”) for their sales of subject merchandise pursuant to sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). *See Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 11938-39. We continue to apply total AFA to PHX because PHX withdrew from the instant administrative review, which significantly impeded our ability to conduct this review with respect to PHX. We continue to apply total AFA to Gerber and Guangxi Yulin because they did not respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaires, which significantly impeded our ability to conduct this review with respect to Gerber and Guangxi Yulin. Lastly, we continue to find that PHX, Gerber and Guangxi Yulin did not establish entitlement to a separate rate and thus are a part of the PRC-wide entity in this review. Because they failed to provide requested information, we continue to find that it is appropriate to apply facts available to PHX, Gerber and Guangxi Yulin in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and

(C)of the Act. In addition, we continue to find, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, that AFA is appropriate. For these final results, we continue to find that as AFA, the PRC-wide entity rate of 198.63 is appropriate. A complete explanation of the selection, corroboration, and application of AFA can be found in the *Preliminary Results* . *See Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 11186. The Department has not received comments with regard to our selection and application of AFA. Nothing has changed since the *Preliminary Results* that would affect the Department's selection, corroboration, and application of AFA for the above-referenced companies in this review. Accordingly, for the final results, we continue to apply AFA as noted above. Final Results Of Review The weighted-average dumping margin for the POR is as follows: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Raoping Yucun 113.84 PRC-Wide Entity 2 198.63 2 Which includes PHX, Gerber and Guangxi Yulin. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies named above will be the rates for those firms established in the final results of this administrative review;

(2)for any previously reviewed or investigated PRC or non-PRC exporter, not covered in this review, with a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the most recent segment of those proceedings;

(3)for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rates will be the PRC-wide rates established in the final results of this review; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from the PRC who does not have its own rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied the non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. The PRC-Wide Cash Deposit Rates The current PRC-wide cash deposit rate is 198.63 percent. This deposit requirement shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Assessment Rates The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) within 15 days of publication of the final results of this administrative review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. For Raoping Yucun, we divided the total dumping margins of its reviewed sales by the total entered value of its reviewed sales for each applicable importer to calculate *ad valorem* assessment rates. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on Raoping Yucun's entries under the relevant order during the POR. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* rates. For Raoping Yucun, we aggregated the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and divided this amount by the entered value of the sales to each importer. Where an importer-specific *ad valorem* rate is *de minimis* , we will order CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Lastly, for the respondents receiving dumping rates based upon AFA, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries according to the AFA *ad valorem* rate. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP upon the completion of the final results of this administrative review. Reimbursement Of Duties This notice also serves as a final 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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: July 5, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I - Decision Memorandum I. General Comments: *Comment 1:* Surrogate Value for Straw *Comment 2:* Surrogate Value for Mushroom Spawn *Comment 3:* Surrogate Value for Cow Manure *Comment 4:* Surrogate Value for Tin Cans/Lids *Comment 5:* Surrogate Value for Steam Coal *Comment 6:* Surrogate Value for Calcium Carbonate *Comment 7:* Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios [FR Doc. E6-11276 Filed 7-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration The President's Export Council: Meeting of the President's Export Council AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of an open meeting. SUMMARY: The President's Export Council

(PEC)will hold a full Council meeting to discuss topics related to export expansion. The meeting will include discussion of trade priorities and initiatives, PEC subcommittee activity, and proposed letters of recommendation to the President. The PEC was established on December 20, 1973, and reconstituted May 4, 1979, to advise the President on matters relating to U.S. trade. It was most recently renewed by Executive Order 13316. *Date:* July 19, 2006. *Time:* 3:30 p.m. (EDT). *Location:* U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4832, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Because of building security, all non-government attendees must pre-register. Please RSVP to the PEC Executive Secretariat no later than July 18, 2006, to J. Marc Chittum, President's Export Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone

(202)482-1124, or e-mail *Marc.Chittum@mail.doc.gov.* This program will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Seating is limited and will be on a first come, first served basis. Requests for sign language interpretation, other auxiliary aids, or pre-registration, should be submitted no later than July 18, 2006, to J. Marc Chittum, President's Export Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone

(202)482-1124, or e-mail *Marc.Chittum@mail.doc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The President's Export Council Executive Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-1124), or visit the PEC Web site, *http://www.trade.gov/pec.* Dated: July 11, 2006. J. Marc Chittum, Staff Director and Executive Secretary, President's Export Council. [FR Doc. 06-6252 Filed 7-12-06; 12:52 pm]

Connectionstraces to 17

Traces to 17 documents

U.S. Code

CFR