Notices. Notice of public meeting and request for comments

30,881 words·~140 min read·/register/2006/11/06/06-9082

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

BILLING CODE 4310-KG-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0037] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are sponsoring a public meeting on November 9, 2006.

The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions that will be discussed at the Thirty-eighth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene

(CCFH)of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which will be held in Houston, Texas, from December 4-9, 2006. The Under Secretary for Food Safety and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 38th Session of CCFH and to address items on the agenda. DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 9, 2006 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in the rear of the Cafeteria, South Agriculture Building, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. Documents related to the 38th Session of the CCFH will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* The U.S. Delegate to the CCFH, Dr. Robert Buchanan of FDA, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following e-mail address ( *Rebecca.Buckner@fda.hhs.gov* ). Registration: There is no need to pre-register for this meeting. To gain admittance to this meeting, individuals must present a photo ID for identification. When arriving for the meeting, please enter the South Building through the First Wing entrance on Independence Avenue. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For Further Information About the 38th Session of the CCFH Contact:* Rebecca Buckner, Alternate to the U.S. Delegate to the CCFH, FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:

(301)436-1486, Fax:

(301)436-2668. E-mail: *Rebecca.Buckner@fda.hhs.gov.* *For Further Information About the Public Meeting Contact:* Amjad Ali, International Issues Analyst, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:

(202)205-7760, Fax:

(202)720-3157. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Codex Alimentarius (Codex) was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade. The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene was established to elaborate codes, standards and related texts for food hygiene. The Committee is hosted by the United States. Issues To Be Discussed at the Public Meeting The following items on the Agenda for the 38th Session of the Committee will be discussed during the public meeting: • Matters referred to the Committee from the other Codex bodies. • Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Management and its Annexes. • Draft Revision of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Egg Products and its Annex. • Draft Guidelines on the Application of General Principles of Food Hygiene to the Control of *Listeria monocytogenes* in Ready-to-Eat Foods. • Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Powdered Formulae for Infants and Young Children. • Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Validation of Food Hygiene Control Measures. • Management of the Work of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene. Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see ADDRESSES ). Public Meeting At the November 9, 2006 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described, discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 38th Session of CCFH, Dr. Robert Buchanan (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 38th Session of the CCFH. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2006_Notices_Index/* . FSIS also will make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/* . Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password-protect their account. Done at Washington, DC on November 1, 2006. F. Edward Scarbrough, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. [FR Doc. E6-18689 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-122-840) Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada for the period October 1, 2004, to September 30, 2005 (“the POR”). We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., (the respondents collectively refer to themselves as “Ivaco”) have been made below normal value (“NV”). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the publication of this notice. In response to Ivaco's January 12, 2006, response to the Department's original Section A questionnaire, notifying the Department that the assets of Ivaco, Inc. and all of its divisions ( *e.g.* , Sivaco Ontario, and Sivaco Quebec) had been purchased, the Department is self-initiating a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damian Felton or Brandon Farlander, at

(202)482-0133 or

(202)482-0182, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (“wire rod”) from Canada. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 67 FR 65944 (October 29, 2002) (“Order”). On October 3, 2005, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005 POR. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 57558 (October 3, 2005). On October 31, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Ivaco requested an administrative review. On December 1, 2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 72107 (December 1, 2005). In its January 12, 2006 response to Section A of the Department's original questionnaire, Ivaco notified the Department that the assets of Ivaco, Inc. and all of its divisions ( *e.g.* , Sivaco Ontario, and Sivaco Quebec) had been purchased on December 1, 2004. We received responses to the remaining section of our questionnaire on February 21, 2006. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions for

(a)stainless steel;

(b)tool steel;

(c)high nickel steel;

(d)ball bearing steel; and

(e)concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are

(f)free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as:

(i)grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;

(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);

(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;

(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;

(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm;

(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and

(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:

(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,

(2)less than 0.01 percent of aluminum,

(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,

(4)0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and

(5)not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as:

(i)grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;

(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);

(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;

(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;

(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm;

(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and

(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:

(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,

(2)less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum,

(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,

(4)0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and

(5)either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.216, we will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty finding or order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The information submitted by Ivaco stating the change in ownership and change in the respondent entities' legal names demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. *See* 19 CFR 351.216(d). The respondents named in our initiation notice were Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P. (aka Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P.), and Sivaco Ontario Processing (aka Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.). 1 In the most recently completed review, the responding entities were Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P. (the producer) and Ivaco Inc., which through its division Sivaco Ontario, purchased wire rod from Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P. and sold wire rod to unaffiliated customers after further processing. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006). 1 *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 72107 (December 1, 2005). As noted above in the “Background” section of this notice, Ivaco notified the Department that the assets of Ivaco, Inc. and all of its divisions were purchased on December 1, 2004. Subsequent to the purchase, Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P. was renamed and is now known as Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P., and Sivaco Ontario and Sivaco Quebec 2 were reorganized into divisions of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P. Ivaco, Inc. is now known as Heico 2004 Member Inc. (“Heico 2004”). Heico 2004 functions as a headquarters managing the operations of Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P. Heico 2004, Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P., and Sivaco Wire group 2004 L.P. are commonly owned. 2 Sivaco Quebec purchases green wire rod from Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and draws the wire rod into wire and wire products that are not within the scope of this order for sale to customers in Canada and the United States. *See* Ivaco's January 12, 2006, response to Section A of the Department's questionnaire. The Department is self-initiating a changed circumstances review to determine whether Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. (referred to as “IRM” throughout the remainder of this notice) and Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., including its divisions, Sivaco Ontario and Sivaco Quebec, are successors to Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P. and Ivaco Inc. We will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based and a description of any action proposed based on those results. As per section 351.221(b)(4), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment. The Department will issue its final results of review no later than 270 days after publication of this notice of initiation. All written comments must be submitted to the Department and served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. During the course of this changed circumstances review, the current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on all subject merchandise, including the merchandise subject to this changed circumstances review, will continue unless and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review or other administrative review. Export Price and Constructed Export Price For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”), as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the producer or exporter outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and

(d)of the Act. Ivaco made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by Ivaco to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated a CEP for sales made by Ivaco to the U.S. customer from unaffiliated processors or distribution warehouses after importation into the United States. For EP sales, we made additions to the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate, for freight revenue (reimbursement for freight charges paid by Ivaco) and for billing errors (debit-note price adjustments made by Ivaco), and deductions, where appropriate, for billing adjustments (including credit-note price adjustments made by Ivaco), early payment discounts and rebates, and movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses included inland freight, warehousing expenses, and brokerage fees. For CEP sales, we made the same adjustments to the starting price as for the EP transactions described above. Consistent with our treatment of these expenses in the most recent review, we recategorized freight from one unaffiliated processor in the United Sates to another unaffiliated processor in the United Sates as further manufacturing costs. 3 In addition, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , credit expenses), imputed inventory carrying costs, and further manufacturing. Finally, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we deducted an amount of profit allocated to the expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and

(2)of the Act. *See* Memorandum from Damian Felton, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Brandon Farlander, Program Manager, entitled, “Analysis Memorandum for Ivaco,” dated October 31, 2006 (“Ivaco Analysis Memorandum”). 3 *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006); *see also Final Results of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France* , 70 FR 7240 (February 11, 2005). Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is not a particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with sales to the United States. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. See section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. We found that Ivaco had a viable home market for steel wire rod. As such, Ivaco submitted home market sales data for purposes of the calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices” section below. B. Cost of Production Analysis Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by the respondents were made at prices below the cost of production (“COP”) during the POR. 4 *See* section 773(b) of the Act. Therefore, we have required Ivaco to file a Section D response for the Department's Questionnaire. 4 *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 69 FR 68309 (November 24, 2004); *see also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Rod from Canada* , 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006). 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, fabrication, and general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices We compared the weighted-average COPs for the respondent to its home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test We disregard below-cost sales where

(1)20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act, and

(2)based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determine that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that Ivaco made sales below cost and we disregarded such sales where appropriate. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices We determined NV for Ivaco as follows. We made adjustments for any differences in packing and deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Specifically, we made COS adjustments for Ivaco's EP transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expenses and warranty expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses and warranty expenses). *See* section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. *See also* 19 CFR 351.410(c). Where we compared Ivaco's U.S. sales to home market sales of merchandise, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. D. Arm's-Length Sales The respondent reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's length, where possible, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison Market* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Ivaco's sales to affiliated parties that were determined not to be at arm's length were disregarded in our comparison to U.S. sales. E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, where NV cannot be based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on constructed value (“CV”). Accordingly, for those models of steel wire rod for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparison products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV. Section 773(e)(1) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported merchandise plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), profit, and U.S. packing expenses. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the COP section of this notice. We based SG&A and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For CEP and EP comparisons, we deducted direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expenses and warranty expenses). *See* section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. *See also* 19 CFR 351.410(c). For EP sales, we added U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses and warranty expenses) to the NV. F. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market made at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. If the comparison market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Ivaco reported two channels of distribution in the home market. The channels of distribution are:

(1)direct sales by IRM and

(2)direct sales by Sivaco Ontario. To determine whether the two channels constitute separate levels of trade in the home market, we examined the stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chains of distribution between Ivaco and its customers. Based on this examination, we preliminarily determine that Ivaco sold merchandise at two levels of trade in the home market during the POR. One level of trade is for sales made by Ivaco's steel wire rod manufacturing facility, IRM; the second level of trade is for sales made by Sivaco Ontario, Ivaco's customer service center, which is a steel wire rod processing and drawing facility. Sales by Sivaco Ontario have different, more complex, distribution patterns, involving substantially greater selling activities. Therefore, based upon our analysis of the marketing process for these sales, we preliminarily determine that sales by Sivaco Ontario are at a more advanced stage than sales by IRM. Ivaco's selling functions in the home market include inventory maintenance services, delivery services, handling services, freight services, sales administration services, bid assistance, technical services, and extension of credit. With regard to inventory maintenance, Sivaco Ontario maintains a significant general inventory, which results in a significantly longer inventory turnover rate than that experienced by IRM. Thereby, Sivaco Ontario assumes the inventory services that would normally be performed by the customer. IRM does not provide these additional services. As stated by the Department in *Pipe and Tube from Turkey* , “inventory maintenance is a principal selling function” and “the additional responsibilities of maintaining merchandise in inventory also give rise to related selling functions that are performed.” 5 5 *See Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey* , 63 FR 35190, 35193 (June 29, 1998) ( *Pipe and Tube from Turkey* ). Due to its provision of these inventory services, Sivaco Ontario ships more often than IRM and also offers its customers just-in-time (“JIT”) delivery services. In contrast, IRM produces and ships rod based on a quarterly rolling schedule. In addition, Sivaco Ontario provides more handling and freight services than IRM in that it offers smaller, more frequent shipments with more varied freight services. For example, IRM sells rod in either full truck load or rail car quantities, while Sivaco Ontario will arrange shipment for less than truck-load quantities. IRM is able to produce significant quantities of wire rod on a rolling basis that are demanded by large volume companies, which is reflected in its delivery and freight services as well as the limited customer services provided. Sivaco Ontario, however, offers customers wire rod and wire products based on inventory already in stock, which enables the company to offer a short lead time in providing different quantities and a variety of processed wire rod products to its customers. With regard to sales administration services, Sivaco Ontario has a smaller average shipment size than IRM, resulting in a higher proportional sales administrative service cost than IRM. In addition to its short-lead-time delivery capabilities, Sivaco Ontario also offers variable customer service options. These additional factors allow Sivaco Ontario to establish customer relations with companies that require smaller volumes of merchandise, inventory flexibility and have limited end use or processing schedules for the purchased product. Furthermore, Sivaco Ontario offers the following services to its customers, which IRM does not:

(1)bid assistance to customers,

(2)assistance with product specification and material processing review, and

(3)a wider range of technical assistance, including helping customers solve usage problems and choose the best type of rod for their applications and machinery. 6 6 *See* Submission from Ivaco to the Department, Re: Section A Response (January 12, 2006) at pages A-37 - A-45. The above differences between IRM and Sivaco Ontario in their marketing process and selling functions allow Ivaco to develop customer relationships on two distinct levels. Based upon these differences, we concluded that two levels of trade exist in the home market, an IRM level of trade (level one) and a Sivaco Ontario level of trade (level two). Although IRM and Sivaco Ontario may have certain customers in common, the Department does not find the number of common customers to be significant. In the U.S. market, Ivaco reported two EP channels of distribution. The channels of distribution are:

(1)direct sales by IRM to U.S. customers and

(2)direct sales by Sivaco Ontario to U.S. customers. To determine whether separate levels of trade exist for EP sales to the U.S. market, we examined the selling functions, the chain of distribution, and the customer categories reported in the United States. Specifically, we have found that direct sales by IRM to U.S. customers involve all the same selling functions as IRM's sales in the home market. Further, direct sales by Sivaco Ontario in the United States include all the same selling functions as those found for its home market sales. Finally, the customer categories submitted by Ivaco for IRM and Sivaco Ontario in the U.S. market match the similar customer categories reported for the home market. Based upon this, we preliminarily determine that EP sales by IRM are made at level of trade one, the same as IRM's home market sales. EP sales by Sivaco Ontario are made at level of trade two, also the same level of trade as Sivaco Ontario's home market sales. To the extent possible, we have compared U.S. EP transactions and home market sales at the same level of trade without making a level-of-trade adjustment. When we were unable to find sales of the foreign like product in the home market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale, we examined whether a level-of-trade adjustment was appropriate. Based on our analysis of sales made at the two levels of trade in the home market, we found that there were consistent price differences between models sold at different levels of trade. Therefore, we made a level-of-trade adjustment for EP sales for which we were not able to find sales of the foreign like product in the home market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale. In addition, Ivaco has two CEP channels of distribution:

(1)sales of goods manufactured by IRM using unaffiliated U.S. processor and/or warehoused in inventory locations in the United States and

(2)sales of goods manufactured by IRM through locations in the United States. For CEP sales, we examined the relevant selling functions after deducting the costs of further manufacturing and U.S. selling expenses and associated profit. As a result, there are virtually no selling activities associated with Ivaco's CEP sales in either channel of distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily find a single level of trade with respect to Ivaco's CEP sales, and, moreover, that the CEP level of trade is not comparable to either level of trade in the home market. As the available data do not provide an appropriate basis for making a level of trade adjustment, we matched, where possible, to the closest home market level of trade, level one (direct sales by IRM), and granted a CEP offset pursuant to 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. This offset is equal to the amount of indirect expenses incurred in the home market not exceeding the amount of the deductions made from the U.S. price in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005: Producer Weighted-Average Margin (Percentage) Ivaco 2.75 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose calculations performed within 5 days of publication of this notice. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than five days after submission of case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument

(1)a statement of the issue,

(2)a brief summary of the argument, and

(3)a table of authorities. Further, the parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total volume of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP on or after 41 days following the publication of the final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (“Assessment Policy Notice”). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these final results of reviews for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of steel wire rod from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)the cash deposit rates for Ivaco will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if a rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore *de minimis* , the cash deposit will be zero;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 8.11 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entities during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) f the Act. Dated: October 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-18664 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-848 Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Results and Amended Order Pursuant to Final Court Decision AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 3, 2006, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) affirmed the Department's remand determination and entered judgment in *Hontex Enterprises Inc., d/b/a Louisiana Packing Co. v. United States* , Ct. No. 02-00223, Slip Op. 06-42 (Ct. Int'l Trade April 3, 2006) (“ *Hontex Judgment* ”), which challenged certain aspects of the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Antidumping Duty and New Shipper Reviews, and Final Rescission of New Shipper Review* , 65 FR 20948 (April 19, 2000) (“ *Final Results* ”) and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China From Edward C. Yang to Joseph A. Spetrini* (“ *Decision Memo* ”), dated April 19, 2000. As explained below, in accordance with the order contained in the CIT's April 3, 2006, *Hontex Judgment* , the Department is amending the *Final Results* to treat Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation

(5)(“HFTC5”) and Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd. (“Ningbo Nanlian”) as unaffiliated, non-collapsed entities. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot T. Fullerton or Christopher D. Riker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4003, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1386 or

(202)482-3441, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 19, 2000, the Department completed its *Final Results* , in which it collapsed Ningbo Nanlian and HFTC5 in the 1997-1998 administrative review. *See Final Results* , and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 20. On February 13, 2003, and on May 21, 2004, the CIT issued orders remanding the case to the Department and ordering the Department to further explain why its findings warranted the collapsing of HFTC5 and Ningbo Nanlian. *See Hontex Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a/ Louisiana Packing Co. v. United States* , 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (CIT 2003), and *Hontex Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Louisiana Packing Company v. United States of America* , 342 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (CIT 2004). The Department submitted its remand redeterminations on August 12, 2003, and October 18, 2004 (“ *Remand Results II* ”), respectively. On August 31, 2005, the CIT issued its ruling on the Department's *Remand Results II* , again remanding the case to the Department. *See Hontex Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a/ Louisiana Packing Co., v. United States* , Slip Op. 05-116, Court No. 00-00223 (Ct. Int'l Trade August 31, 2005). Specifically, the CIT remanded the case for the Department to:

(a)find that Mr. Edward Lee, the owner of Louisiana Packing Co. (Louisiana Packing), an importer of crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China

(PRC)and one of the joint venture owners of Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd. (Ningbo Nanlian), did not control another respondent, Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation

(5)(HFTC5), within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(F) and (G), and

(b)find that HFTC5 and Ningbo Nanlian were not affiliated, and

(c)find that HFTC5 and Ningbo Nanlian should not be collapsed and given a single antidumping margin, and

(d)find that Ningbo Nanlian is entitled to a separate company-specific antidumping margin and calculate that margin using the verified information on the record; or

(a)reopen the record in order to gather additional evidence of Mr. Lee's control relationship with HFTC5 during the period of review,

(b)place such additional information on the record, and

(c)conduct an analysis that takes into account any such new evidence, including the temporal aspect of any such new evidence. *See CPA Remand II* . The Department submitted the *Final Results of Remand* to the CIT on December 9, 2005. In its *Final Results of Remand* , in accordance with the CIT's August 31, 2005, order, the Department found

(1)that Mr. Lee did not control HFTC5 within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(F) and (G),

(2)that HFTC5 and Ningbo Nanlian were not affiliated,

(3)that HFTC5 and Ningbo Nanlian should not be collapsed and given a single antidumping margin, and

(4)that Ningbo Nanlian is entitled to a separate company-specific antidumping margin. On April 3, 2006, the CIT sustained the final remand determination made by the Department. *See Hontex Judgment* . The Department filed its appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) on May 31, 2006. The CAFC granted the Department's motion to dismiss the appeal and dismissed the case on September 21, 2006. Amendment to the Final Determination Because there is now a final and conclusive court decision, effective as of the publication date of this notice, we are amending the *97/98 Final Results* and revising the weighted-average dumping margins for both companies, for purposes of the 97/98 period of review: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd. 2.16 Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation

(5)201.63 We have calculated Ningbo Nanlian's company-specific antidumping margin as 2.16 percent. *See* the Memorandum to the File from Maureen A. Flannery, “Analysis for the Draft Results of Determination Pursuant to Court Remand for Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.,” dated November 22, 2005. There have been no changes to this analysis for these amended final results. Additionally, we are determining HFTC5's margin based on its own performance in the administrative review. Therefore, HFTC5's antidumping duty margin will remain 201.63 percent. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: October 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-18686 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-588-837 Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Preliminary Results of Reconsideration of Sunset Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 13, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the notice of initiation of the reconsideration of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on large newspaper printing presses and components thereof, whether assembled or unassembled (LNPP), from Japan. On the basis of the notice of intent to participate, as well as adequate substantive responses and rebuttal comments filed on behalf of the domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting a full sunset review of the antidumping duty order, following the requirements of section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i). As a result of this reconsideration of the sunset review, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the order on LNPP from Japan after the original sunset review period of 1996-2001 would have likely led to the continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section entitled “Preliminary Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger, Kate Johnson, or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202-482-4136, 202-482-4929, or 202-482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 25, 2002, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on LNPP from Japan under a five-year sunset review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act, because the only domestic interested party in the sunset review, Goss Graphics Corporation (now known as Goss International Corporation (“Goss”)), withdrew its participation, and, thus, its interest in the review. * See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan (A-588-837) and Germany (A-428-821): Notice of Final Results of Five-year Sunset Reviews and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders * , 67 FR 8522 (February 25, 2002) (“ *2002 Sunset Review* ”). As discussed in *Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review* (71 FR 11590 (March 8, 2006)) (“ *CCR Final Results* ”), the Department noted that the results of the *2002 Sunset Review* are unreliable because the misconduct of Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. and TKS (U.S.A.), Inc. (“TKS”) during the 1997-1998 administrative review of the LNPP antidumping duty order, which ultimately led to its company-specific revocation from the underlying order, substantially tainted the integrity of the proceeding, and may have significantly undermined the integrity of the sunset review results, including the parties' decisions whether or not to participate in the sunset review. TKS' misconduct before the Department was the subject of a federal district court decision and was confirmed by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. *See id* . As a result, the Department rescinded TKS' company-specific revocation and stated its intent to reconsider the *2002 Sunset Review* , which revoked the order in its entirety. On April 13, 2006, the Department published its notice of initiation of the reconsideration of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on LNPP from Japan, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. *See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan: Reconsideration of Sunset Review* , 71 FR 19164 (April 13, 2006) (“ *Notice of Initiation* ”). The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from the domestic interested party, Goss, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). Goss claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a producer of the domestic like product. The Department received a complete substantive response to the *Notice of Initiation* from Goss within the 30-day deadline specified in the Department's regulations under 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department received complete substantive responses from respondent interested parties, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”), and TKS within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). Rebuttal comments were filed by Goss, MHI and TKS on May 26, 2006. On June 8, 2006, the Department determined that respondent interested parties accounted for more than 50 percent of exports of the subject merchandise and, therefore, submitted adequate substantive responses to the Department's *Notice of Initiation* . *See* Memorandum to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2; Re: Adequacy Determination in the Reconsideration of Sunset Review on Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i), the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review of this antidumping duty order. 1 1 The *2002 Sunset Review* was conducted on an expedited basis because only the domestic interested party, Goss, submitted a response. Nevertheless, in reconsidering the *2002 Sunset Review* , the Department has determined that it is appropriate to conduct a new review applying the standard sunset review procedures and allowing all interested parties an opportunity to comment. On June 28, 2006, MHI requested that the Department reconsider its adequacy determination issued on June 8, 2006, because it claimed that Goss was not a domestic interested party. On July 18, 2006, the Department requested additional information from Goss with respect to its status as a domestic producer during the POR and subsequently through November 30, 2001, which includes the period during which the original sunset review would have been conducted. Goss responded to the Department's request on August 1, 2006. MHI and TKS submitted comments on Goss' submission on August 31, 2006. Goss responded to those comments on October 2, 2006, and MHI submitted additional comments on October 6, 2006. Scope of the Order The products covered by the scope of the order are large newspaper printing presses, including press systems, press additions and press components, whether assembled or unassembled, whether complete or incomplete, that are capable of printing or otherwise manipulating a roll of paper more than two pages across. A page is defined as a newspaper broadsheet page in which the lines of type are printed perpendicular to the running of the direction of the paper or a newspaper tabloid page with lines of type parallel to the running of the direction of the paper. In addition to press systems, the scope of the order includes the five press system components. They are:

(1)a printing unit, which is any component that prints in monocolor, spot color and/or process

(full)color;

(2)a reel tension paster (RTP), which is any component that feeds a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages in width into a subject printing unit;

(3)a folder, which is a module or combination of modules capable of cutting, folding, and/or delivering the paper from a roll or rolls of newspaper broadsheet paper more than two pages in width into a newspaper format;

(4)conveyance and access apparatus capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages across through the production process and which provides structural support and access; and

(5)a computerized control system, which is any computer equipment and/or software designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate the functions and operations of large newspaper printing presses or press components. A press addition is comprised of a union of one or more of the press components defined above and the equipment necessary to integrate such components into an existing press system. Because of their size, large newspaper printing press systems, press additions, and press components are typically shipped either partially assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and are assembled and/or completed prior to and/or during the installation process in the United States. Any of the five components, or collection of components, the use of which is to fulfill a contract for large newspaper printing press systems, press additions, or press components, regardless of degree of assembly and/or degree of combination with non-subject elements before or after importation, is included in the scope of the order. Also included in the scope are elements of a LNPP system, addition or component, which taken altogether, constitute at least 50 percent of the cost of manufacture of any of the five major LNPP components of which they are a part. For purposes of the scope, the following definitions apply irrespective of any different definition that may be found in customs rulings, U.S. Customs law or the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS):

(1)the term “unassembled” means fully or partially unassembled or disassembled; and

(2)the term “incomplete” means lacking one or more elements with which the LNPP is intended to be equipped in order to fulfill a contract for a LNPP system, addition or component. This scope does not cover spare or replacement parts. Spare or replacement parts imported pursuant to a LNPP contract, which are not integral to the original start-up and operation of the LNPP, and are separately identified and valued in a LNPP contract, whether or not shipped in combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from the scope of the order. Used presses are also not subject to this scope. Used presses are those that have been previously sold in an arm's-length transaction to a purchaser that used them to produce newspapers in the ordinary course of business. Also excluded from the scope, in accordance with the Department's determination in a previous changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order which resulted in the partial revocation of the order with respect to certain merchandise, are elements and components of LNPP systems, and additions thereto, which feature a 22-inch cut-off, 50-inch web width and a rated speed no greater than 75,000 copies per hour. *See Large Newspaper Printing Presses Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order, In Part* , 64 FR 72315 (December 27, 1999). In addition to the specifications set out in this paragraph, all of which must be met in order for the product to be excluded from the scope of the order, the product must also meet all of the specifications detailed in the five numbered sections following this paragraph. If one or more of these criteria is not fulfilled, the product is not excluded from the scope of the order. 1. *Printing Unit* : A printing unit which is a color keyless blanket-to-blanket tower unit with a fixed gain infeed and fixed gain outfeed, with a rated speed no greater than 75,000 copies per hour, which includes the following features: • Each tower consisting of four levels, one or more of which must be populated. • Plate cylinders which contain slot lock-ups and blanket cylinders which contain reel rod lock-ups both of which are of solid carbon steel with nickel plating and with bearers at both ends which are configured in-line with bearers of other cylinders. • Keyless inking system which consists of a passive feed ink delivery system, an eight roller ink train, and a non-anilox and non-porous metering roller. • The dampener system which consists of a two nozzle per page spraybar and two roller dampener with one chrome drum and one form roller. • The equipment contained in the color keyless ink delivery system is designed to achieve a constant, uniform feed of ink film across the cylinder without ink keys. This system requires use of keyless ink which accepts greater water content. 2. *Folder* : A module which is a double 3:2 rotary folder with 160 pages collect capability and double (over and under) delivery, with a cut-off length of 22 inches. The upper section consists of three-high double formers (total of 6) with six sets of nipping rollers. 3. *RTP* : A component which is of the two-arm design with core drives and core brakes, designed for 50 inch diameter rolls; and arranged in the press line in the back-to-back configuration (left and right hand load pairs). 4. *Conveyance and Access Apparatus* : Conveyance and access apparatus capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheets across through the production process, and a drive system which is of conventional shafted design. 5. *Computerized Control System* : A computerized control system, which is any computer equipment and/or software designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate the functions and operations of large newspaper printing presses or press components. Further, the scope covers all current and future printing technologies capable of printing newspapers, including, but not limited to, lithographic (offset or direct), flexographic, and letterpress systems. The products covered by the scope are imported into the United States under subheadings 8443.11.10, 8443.11.50, 8443.30.00, 8443.59.50, 8443.60.00, and 8443.90.50 of the HTSUS. Large newspaper printing presses may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8443.21.00 and 8443.40.00. Large newspaper printing press computerized control systems may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8471.49.10, 8471.49.21, 8471.49.26, 8471.50.40, 8471.50.80, and 8537.10.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised for the preliminary results of this reconsideration of the sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Reconsideration of Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Preliminary Results,” to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, (“Decision Memo”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to have prevailed if the antidumping duty order had not been revoked. Parties can find a discussion of the issues raised in this reconsideration of the sunset review and the corresponding recommendations for these preliminary results in this public memo, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Preliminary Results of Review The Department preliminarily determines that, for purposes of this reconsideration of the sunset review, had the antidumping duty order not been revoked in the *2002 Sunset Review* , revocation of the antidumping duty order on LNPP from Japan would have likely led to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margins: Manufacturers/Producers/Exporters Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. 59.67 Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. 51.97 All Others 55.05 Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 5 days after the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after rebuttal briefs are due, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). The Department will issue a notice of final results of this reconsideration of the sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such briefs, no later than March 9, 2007. This reconsideration of sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-18670 Filed 11-3-06; 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; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has preliminarily determined that sales by the respondents in this review, covering the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006, have been made at prices less than normal value (“NV”). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department invites interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. DATES: Effective Date: September 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Terre Keaton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-1766 and

(202)482-1280, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC (64 FR 8308). On February 1, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the petitioner 1 requested a review of 13 companies (including Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest which submitted their own requests for review). 2 In addition, Raoping CXF Foods (“Raoping CXF”) ( *i.e.* , Guangxi Eastwing's supplier) requested its own review. 1 The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade which includes the following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc., Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Mushroom Canning Company, and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc. 2 These companies are:

(1)Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Blue Field”);

(2)China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation (“China National”);

(3)China Processed Food Import & Export Company (“COFCO”);

(4)COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. (“COFCO Zhangzhou”);

(5)Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. (“Gerber”);

(6)Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Green Fresh”);

(7)Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods, Inc. (“Guangxi Hengxian”);

(8)Guangxi Eastwing Trading Co., Ltd. (“Guangxi Eastwing”);

(9)Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd. (“Guangxi Yulin”);

(10)Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co., Ltd. (“Primera Harvest”);

(11)Raoping Yucun Canned Foods Factory (“Raoping Yucun”);

(12)Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Co., Ltd. (“Jiufa”); and

(13)Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. (“Xiamen Jiahua”). On April 5, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this administrative review covering the companies listed in the requests received from the interested parties. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). Prior to the notice of initiation, the Department issued quantity and value (“Q&V”) questionnaires to the firms for which a review had been requested. 3 This questionnaire requested the quantity and value for the identified companies that produced and/or exported certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. 4 3 In two prior administrative reviews of this antidumping duty order, the Department collapsed COFCO with COFCO Zhangzhou, Xiamen Jiahua, Fujian Zishan Group, Co., Ltd. (“Fujian Zishan”), and Fujian Yu Xing Fruits & Vegetable Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Yu Xing”). *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Sixth Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 54635, 54637 (September 9, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 ( *“PRC Mushrooms 4th AR”* ); and *Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 10965, 10971 (March 7, 2005) as affirmed in *Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 54361 (September 14, 2005) ( *“PRC Mushrooms 5th AR”* ). During the POR, COFCO was the only one of the COFCO affiliated companies to export subject merchandise to the United States. 4 The Department inadvertently did not issue a Q&V questionnaire to Raoping CXF prior to initiating this review. After the notice of initiation, the Department again requested Q&V information and provided additional opportunity for all companies covered by the review to respond to this request. In response, four companies responded that they exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR:

(1)COFCO;

(2)Guangxi Hengxian;

(3)Primera Harvest; and

(4)Guangxi Eastwing. The following five companies filed no-shipment claims:

(1)Blue Field;

(2)Gerber;

(3)Jiufa;

(4)Raoping CXF; 5 and

(5)Raoping Yucun. The two remaining companies, Green Fresh and Guangxi Yulin, either did not submit a properly filed Q&V response or did not respond. 6 5 Raoping CXF subsequently withdrew its review request on April 26, 2006. 6 With respect to Green Fresh, we issued the initial Q&V questionnaire on March 9, 2006, and follow-up letters on April 20 and 25, and May 4, 2006, to this company informing it that its Q&V response was not properly filed in accordance with the Department's regulations, but Green Fresh failed to correct its filing deficiencies ( *see* Memorandum to the File dated May 23, 2006, for further discussion on this matter). With respect to Guangxi Yulin, we issued the initial Q&V questionnaire on March 9, 2006, and re-issued the Q&V questionnaire to it on April 6, and May 5, 2006, but received no response ( *see* Memorandum to the File dated May 23, 2006, for further discussion on this matter). Because it was not practicable for the Department to individually examine all of the companies covered by the review, the Department limited its examination for these preliminary results to the largest producers/exporters that could reasonably be examined, accounting for the greatest possible export volume, pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Therefore, the Department selected COFCO and Guangxi Hengxian as the mandatory respondents in this review and designated Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest as Section A Respondents. *See* Memorandum From Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Office Director, to Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, entitled *2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents* , dated June 8, 2006. Accordingly, on June 9, 2006, we issued the full antidumping duty questionnaire to COFCO and Guangxi Hengxian and only the section A questionnaire to Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest. On May 10, 2006, the Department requested documentation from CBP for specific entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the POR in order to examine Gerber's no-shipment claim. On June 16, 2006, the Department received the requested entry documentation from CBP. As a result of reviewing the CBP entry documentation, the Department issued Gerber a letter on June 21, 2006, asking questions regarding its claim that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Specifically, the Department asked Gerber if it had any affiliates in Hong Kong through which it shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In response to the Department's June 21, 2006, letter, Gerber stated in its July 11, 2006, submission that it had no affiliates in Hong Kong through which subject merchandise was exported to or imported into the United States during the POR. As a result of conducting further independent research on this matter, the Department issued Gerber a second letter on July 31, 2006, which contained documentation indicating that Gerber indeed had an undisclosed affiliate registered in Hong Kong during the POR. Combined with the fact that this same Hong Kong affiliate also made shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, the Department's July 31, 2006, letter asked Gerber to explain why it did not mention this Hong Kong affiliate and why it did not disclose that its affiliate was involved in sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Gerber did not submit a response to the Department's July 31, 2006, letter by the specified deadline ( *i.e.* , August 14, 2006). Therefore, the Department issued Gerber another letter on August 15, 2006, which stated that the Department intended to resort to adverse facts available as a result of Gerber's failure to respond to the Department's letter of July 31, 2006. Gerber did not respond to the Department's August 15 letter ( *see* September 6, 2006, Memorandum to the File, entitled *Efforts to Provide Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. With the Department's July 31, 2006, Supplemental Questionnaire* ). On August 17, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department rescinded this review with respect to Blue Field, Raoping CXF, Raoping Yucun, and Shandong Jiufa because these companies did not have shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, or withdrew their request for a review in a timely manner. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 48911 (August 22, 2006). The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act. Mandatory Respondents On June 9, 2006, the Department issued the full antidumping duty questionnaire to COFCO and Guangxi Hengxian. On July 21, 2006, COFCO submitted its section A questionnaire response (“section A response”). On August 2, 2006, COFCO submitted its sections C and D questionnaire response (“sections C and D response”). Guangxi Hengxian did not submit a questionnaire response. 7 The Department issued Guangxi Hengxian a letter on August 7, 2006, which stated that the Department intends to resort to adverse facts available as a result of Guangxi Hengxian's failure to respond to the Department's June 8, 2006, antidumping duty questionnaire. Guangxi Hengxian did not respond to the Department's August 7 letter. *See* September 6, 2006, Memorandum to the File, entitled *Efforts to Provide Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods, Inc. With the Department's June 9, 2006, Antidumping Duty Questionnaire.* 7 The original deadline for the mandatory respondents to submit their response to all sections of the Department's June 8, 2006, antidumping duty questionnaire was July 17, 2006. However, the Department subsequently extended the section A response deadline until July 21, 2006, and the sections C and D response deadline until August 2, 2006. On August 2, 2006, the Department issued COFCO a section A supplemental questionnaire and it submitted its response on August 30, 2006 (“supplemental section A response”). On August 10, 2006, the Department issued COFCO a sections C and D supplemental questionnaire and it submitted its response on September 7, 2006. On September 14, 2006, the Department issued COFCO another sections C and D supplemental questionnaire and COFCO submitted its response on September 25, 2006. Section A Respondents On June 8, 2006, the Department issued the section A questionnaire to Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest. Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest submitted their section A questionnaire responses on June 13, and July 7, 2006, respectively. On July 20 and 24, 2006, the Department issued Primera Harvest and Guangxi Eastwing a section A supplemental questionnaire, respectively. Both companies submitted their supplemental responses on August 3, 2006. On August 23, 2006, the Department issued Primera Harvest a second section A supplemental questionnaire, to which it responded on September 7, 2006. Surrogate Country and Factors On May 4, 2006, the Department identified five countries, including India, that are comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development to use in this review. On July 13, 2006, the Department solicited comments on surrogate country selection from interested parties. The Department received no comments from the interested parties. *See* the “Normal Value” section below for further detail. On September 15, 2006, 8 the Department received surrogate-value information from COFCO. For a detailed discussion of the Department's selection of surrogate values and financial ratios, *see* “Factor Valuation” section below. *See also Memorandum from the Team to the File, Re: 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China—Factors Valuation For the Preliminary Results (“Factor Valuation Memo”)* , dated October 31, 2006, which is on file in CRU. 8 September 5, 2006, was the deadline for submitting surrogate value information for consideration in the preliminary results as specified in the Department's July 13, 2006, letter. 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. 9 9 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. Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party:

(A)Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;

(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to sections 782(c)(1) and

(e)of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department, “in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” *See also* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, and Gerber

(A)Facts Available As stated above, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, and Gerber each withheld information requested by the Department by not submitting a response to the Department's questionnaires. Green Fresh and Guangxi Yulin failed to properly respond to the Department's requests for Q&V information. The information requested in the Department's Q&V questionnaire was critical and necessary for selecting mandatory respondents in the review. Specifically, Green Fresh failed to submit a properly filed Q&V response despite being provided numerous opportunities to do so. Guangxi Yulin did not attempt to file a Q&V response at all. Guangxi Hengxian did not submit a response to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. Because Guangxi Hengxian was selected as a mandatory respondent for this review, the information requested in the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire is critical and necessary to calculate Guangxi Hengxian's margin. As stated above in the “Background” section, Gerber did not respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire which further attempted to examine Gerber's claim that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Specifically, based on documentation obtained from CBP, the Department had reason to believe that Gerber exported subject merchandise to the United States through one of its affiliates located in Hong Kong. As a result of this discovery, the Department provided Gerber with an opportunity to explain whether Gerber used its previously undisclosed Hong Kong-based affiliate to make sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. market during the POR. Gerber failed to respond to the Department's second request for information. Gerber withheld requested information from the Department and impeded this proceeding because of its failure to participate in the instant review. Therefore, the Department has no choice but to rely on the facts otherwise available in order to determine a margin for Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, and Gerber pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act because they failed to provide information requested by the Department. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 18369 (April 11, 2005), (“because this company refused to participate in this administrative review, we find that, * * * the use of total facts available is appropriate”); *see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons From Japan,* 68 FR 71072 (December 22, 2003), (“Since UC and DNP withheld information requested by the Department, the Department has no choice but to rely on the facts otherwise available in order to determine a margin for these parties”). Because each of the above-mentioned respondents failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires, the Department could not determine whether Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, or Guangxi Yulin is eligible for a separate rate. Accordingly, we are not granting these companies a separate rate and are applying the PRC-wide rate to all four companies.

(B)Adverse Inference In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act states that if an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the Department, the Department, in reaching the applicable determination under section 776(b) of the Act, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. In the instant proceeding, we find it appropriate to apply an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available for Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, and Guangxi Yulin, which are part of the PRC-wide entity. By failing to submit a response to the Department's questionnaires, all four above-mentioned companies have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in this proceeding. Accordingly, we find that an adverse inference is warranted. By applying AFA, we ensure that the companies that fail to cooperate will not obtain a more favorable result than those companies that complied fully with the Department's requests in this review. The PRC Entity As mentioned, four exporters named in the notice of initiation did not respond to the Department's request for information. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from PRC exporters that have their own calculated rate. Companies that have not demonstrated their entitlement to a separate rate are appropriately considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, we determine it is necessary to review the PRC-wide entity because these four PRC exporters are subject to the instant proceeding. Pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the Department determines that it must use facts otherwise available for the PRC-wide entity because necessary information is not available on the record of this proceeding due to the failure of the PRC-wide entity, including the four PRC exporters mentioned, to provide responses to the Department's requests for information in this proceeding. Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to requests for information in the form or manner requested, we find it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary results of review for the PRC-wide entity. In addition, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. As noted above, the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to the Department's requests for information, despite repeated requests that it do so. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity refused to participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review. An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. It is the Department's practice to assign the highest rate from any segment of the proceeding as total AFA when a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Final Rescission In Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 38873 (July 6, 2005). Specifically, as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-entity 198.63 percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate. *See* the “Corroboration” section below for a discussion of the probative value of the PRC-wide 198.63 percent rate. Corroboration of AFA Rate for PRC-Wide Entity, Including Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian and Guangxi Yulin Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, the information it applies as facts available. To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both reliable and relevant. We are applying as AFA the PRC-wide rate, which is the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, and is the highest rate from the petition in the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation. *See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,* 64 FR 8308, 8310 (February 19, 1999). This AFA rate has not changed since the original LTFV determination. For purposes of corroboration, the Department will consider whether the AFA rate is both reliable and relevant. The AFA rate we are applying for the current review was found to be reliable in reviews subsequent to the LTFV investigation, including the two most recently completed reviews. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission and Preliminary Results of Sixth Administrative Review,* 71 FR 11183, 11186 (March 6, 2006) and affirmed in *Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Sixth Administrative Review* , 71 FR 40477, 40478 (July 17, 2006) (“ *PRC Mushrooms 6th AR* ”); and *PRC Mushrooms 5th AR,* 70 FR at 10969 (to corroborate the AFA margin of 198.63 percent, in the 5th review the Department compared the AFA margin to calculated margins for certain respondents and found that 198.63 percent was within the range of margins for individual sales of identical and/or similar products). Furthermore, no information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of the currently-applied PRC-wide rate. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review,* 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to “facts available”) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D&L Supply Co.* v. *United States,* 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). The information used in calculating this margin was based on sales and production data submitted by the respondents in the LTFV investigation, together with the most appropriate surrogate value information available to the Department chosen from submissions by the parties in the LTFV investigation, as well as gathered by the Department itself. Furthermore, the calculation of this margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the proceeding. Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as AFA, we determine that this rate has relevance. Based on our analysis as described above, we find that the margin of 198.63 percent is reliable and has relevance. As the rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the calculated rate of 198.63 percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate, is in accordance with the requirement of section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information be corroborated (that it have probative value). Consequently, we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise from all companies subject to the PRC-wide rate, including Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, and Guangxi Yulin. Affiliation—COFCO To the extent that section 771(33) of the Act does not conflict with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of the non-market economy (“NME”) provision, section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will determine that exporters and/or producers are affiliated if the facts of the case support such a finding. 10 For the reasons discussed below, we find that this condition has not prevented us from examining whether certain exporters and/or producers are affiliated with COFCO in this administrative review. 10 *See PRC Mushrooms 5th AR,* 70 FR at 10969. In prior administrative reviews involving COFCO, the Department has found COFCO to be affiliated with Yu Xing as a result of its direct ownership and control in Yu Xing and affiliated with Fujian Zishan through its parent company, China National, and Xiamen Jiahua. Moreover, the Department has also found in prior reviews that COFCO is affiliated with another preserved mushroom producer, COFCO Zhangzhou. *See PRC Mushrooms 5th AR,* 70 FR at 10969. COFCO claims that it is no longer affiliated with Fujian Zishan because Xiamen Jiahua sold all of its ownership shares in Fujian Zishan at the beginning of this POR ( *see* page A-5 of COFCO's section A response). The Department has examined whether COFCO and the entities noted above are still affiliated for purposes of determining whether they should be collapsed in this review. For further discussion on this matter, *see* Memorandum From James P. Maeder, Jr., Office Director, to Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, entitled *Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Whether To Continue To Collapse COFCO with Some or All of its Affiliated Companies,* dated October 31, 2006 ( *“Affiliation/Collapsing Memo”* ). Based on our analysis, we preliminarily find that during this POR, COFCO, China National, COFCO Zhangzhou, Xiamen Jiahua, and Yu Xing were affiliated through the common control of COFCO's parent company, pursuant to sections 771(33)(F) and

(G)of the Act. However, with respect to Fujian Zishan, we find that during the POR, Fujian Zishan was no longer affiliated with the above-mentioned companies based on the facts discussed above. *See Affiliation/Collapsing Memo* for further discussion. Collapsing—COFCO Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the Department will collapse producers and treat them as a single entity where

(1)those producers are affiliated,

(2)the producers have production facilities for producing similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities, and

(3)there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production. We also note that the rationale for collapsing, to prevent manipulation of price and/or production ( *see* 19 CFR 351.401(f)), applies to both producers and exporters, if the facts indicate that they are able to manipulate price or production as a result of control over the production and sales activities of affiliates whose operations are intertwined. To the extent that this provision does not conflict with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of the NME provision, section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will collapse two or more affiliated entities in a case involving a NME country if the facts of the case warrant such treatment. Furthermore, we note that the factors listed in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) are not exhaustive, and in the context of a NME investigation or administrative review, other factors unique to the relationship of business entities within the NME may lead the Department to determine that collapsing is either warranted or unwarranted, depending on the facts of the case. *See Hontex Enterprises,* Inc. v. *United States,* 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1342 (CIT 2003) (noting that the application of collapsing in the NME context may differ from the standard factors listed in the regulation). In summary, if there is evidence of significant potential for manipulation between or among affiliates which produce and/or export similar or identical merchandise, whether or not all such merchandise is exported to the United States, the Department may find such evidence sufficient to apply the collapsing criteria in a NME context in order to determine whether all or some of those affiliates should be treated as one entity ( *see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China, Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,* 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001); *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001) (“ *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products* ”); and *Anshan Iron & Steel Co.* v. *United States,* Slip. Op. 03-83 at 32-33 (CIT 2003) (“ *Anshan* ”)). We find that the first and second collapsing criteria are met with respect to COFCO's affiliated producers COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing because these producers have production facilities for producing similar or identical products, such that no retooling at any of the three facilities is required in order to restructure manufacturing priorities. *See* factors of production data submitted by each company in COFCO's section D response. We find that the third collapsing criterion is also met with respect to COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing because COFCO and China National, which wholly owns COFCO, have significant ownership in and control over the operations of COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing. They also have shared management and intertwined operations. Therefore, we find that there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production between these two affiliated producers of the subject merchandise. We also note that during the POR COFCO and Zhangzhou and Yu Xing were legally merged into a single company. *See Affiliation/Collapsing Memo* for further discussion. In addition, based on the reasons mentioned in the *Affiliation/Collapsing Memo* and the guidance of 19 CFR 351.401(f), we have preliminarily collapsed COFCO, China National, Xiamen Jiahua and COFCO Zhangzhou/YuXing because there is a significant potential for manipulation of sales decisions between these parties that are exporters of the subject merchandise or have the ability to export. Xiamen Jiahua, a preserved mushroom exporter, is also owned, in part, by China National which wholly owns COFCO. Yu Xing, which is treated as a single entity with the producer COFCO Zhangzhou, also has export rights and has directly exported since obtaining those export rights. Consequently, we have considered COFCO and the four affiliates mentioned above as a single entity for purposes of determining whether or not the collapsed entity as a whole is entitled to a separate rate. With respect to Fujian Zishan, as mentioned we find this company to be no longer affiliated with COFCO and it is, therefore, not part of the collapsed entity. 11 This decision is specific to the facts presented in this review and is based on several considerations, including the structure of the collapsed entity, the level of control between and among affiliates, and the level of participation by each affiliate in the proceeding. Given the unique relationships which arise in NMEs between individual companies and the government, a separate rate will be granted to the collapsed entity only if the facts, taken as a whole, support such a finding ( *see* “Separate Rates” section below for further discussion). 11 Accordingly, Fujian Zishan is not subject to this review and the Department has not conducted a separate rates analysis on this company. Fujian Zishan, therefore, is not entitled to a separate rate in this review. Separate-Rates Determination In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to governmental control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate ( *i.e.* , a PRC-wide rate). One respondent in this review, Primera Harvest, is wholly owned by a company located outside the PRC. Therefore, an additional separate-rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether Primera Harvest's export activities are independent from government control. ( *See* *e.g.* , *Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 54021 (September 13, 2006), which cites to *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China,* 64 FR 71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly owned by persons located in Hong Kong)). The other Section A respondent, Guangxi Eastwing is a limited liability company, whereas the mandatory respondent, COFCO, is owned by its affiliate China National, which is owned by “all of the people.” COFCO also owns, in part, two preserved mushroom producers, COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing. As discussed above in the “Collapsing” section of this notice, we have preliminarily considered COFCO, China National, Yu Xing, COFCO Zhangzhou, and Xiamen Jiahua a collapsed entity. Thus, a separate-rates analysis is necessary to determine whether the export activities of Guangxi Eastwing and COFCO's collapsed entity are independent from government control. To establish whether a respondent is sufficiently independent from governmental control of its export activities so as to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( *Sparklers* ) at Comment 1, and amplified in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China,* 59 FR 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994) ( *Silicon Carbide* ). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. 1. Absence of De Jure Control Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of *de jure* absence of government control over exporter activities includes:

(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses;

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and

(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. The COFCO collapsed entity and Guangxi Eastwing have placed on the administrative record the following documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control: The 1994 “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China;” the “Company Law of the PRC,” effective as of July 1, 1994; and “The Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative Regulations,” promulgated on June 13, 1988. In other cases involving products from the PRC, respondents have submitted the following additional documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control, and the Department has placed these additional documents on the record as well: The “Law of the People's Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole People,” adopted on April 13, 1988 (“the Industrial Enterprises Law”); and the 1992 “Regulations for Transformation of Operational Mechanisms of State-Owned Industrial Enterprises” (“Business Operation Provisions”). ( *See* October 31, 2006, memorandum to the file which places the above-referenced laws on the record of this proceeding segment.) As in prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found them to establish sufficiently an absence of *de jure* control of joint ventures and companies owned by “all of the people” absent proof on the record to the contrary. *See,* *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) (“ *Furfuryl Alcohol* ”), and *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China,* 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995). 2. Absence of De Facto Control As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *See Silicon Carbide,* 56 FR at 22587 (May 2, 1994). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically considers the following four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control of its export functions:

(1)Whether the export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a governmental agency;

(2)whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;

(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and

(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide,* 59 FR at 22586-87 and *Furfuryl Alcohol,* 60 FR 22545. The affiliates in COFCO's collapsed entity (where applicable) and Guangxi Eastwing have asserted the following:

(1)Each establishes its own export prices;

(2)each negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations;

(3)each makes its own personnel decisions; and

(4)each retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, each respondent's questionnaire responses indicate that each respondent's pricing practices during the POR does not suggest coordination among exporters. As a result, there is a sufficient basis to preliminarily determine that each respondent listed above (including the COFCO collapsed entity as a whole) has demonstrated a *de facto* absence of government control of its export functions and is entitled to a separate rate. Moreover, with respect to the affiliates included in the COFCO collapsed entity, we have assigned to all of them the same antidumping rate in these preliminary results for the above-mentioned reasons. Fair-Value Comparisons To determine whether the respondents' sales of subject merchandise were made at less than NV, we compared the export price

(EP)to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department calculated EPs for sales by COFCO to the United States because the subject merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated customers in the United States (or to unaffiliated resellers outside the United States with knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States) prior to importation, and constructed export-price methodology was not otherwise indicated. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c), we made deductions from the net sales price for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling. Each of these services was provided by a NME vendor and, thus, as explained in the “Normal Value” section below, we based the deductions for these movement charges on values from a surrogate country. For the reasons stated in the “Normal Value” section below, we selected India as the primary surrogate country. To value brokerage and handling, the Department used an average of the publicly summarized data from the following two sources which we have placed on the record of this review:

(1)Data reported in the U.S. sales listing in the February 28, 2005, submission from Essar Steel Ltd. (“Essar Steel”) in the antidumping duty administrative review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, A-533-820 (covering December 2003-November 2004), and

(2)data reported in Pidilite Industries' March 9, 2004, public version response submitted in the antidumping duty investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, A-533-838 (covering the period November 2002-September 2003). We identify the source used to value foreign inland freight in the “Normal Value” section of this notice, below. We adjusted these values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the effective period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or deflation adjustments for these values using the wholesale price indices (“WPI”) for India as published in the *International Financial Statistics Online Service* maintained by the Statistics Department of the International Monetary Fund at the Web site *http://www.imfstatistics.org* (“IFS”). COFCO claims that its affiliated producer, Yu Xing, did not incur an expense for the glass jars and caps used to export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR because its U.S. customers provided these items to Yu Xing free-of-charge. In response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire, COFCO provided documentation which sufficiently supported its claim that

(1)its U.S. customers contracted with PRC glass jar and cap producers and that these producers had indeed delivered these items to Yu Xing in a certain quantity on a certain date, free-of-charge; and

(2)that these free-of-charge glass jars and caps were used in the required quantities for certain subject merchandise sold to its applicable U.S. customers during the POR. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Department has adjusted the U.S. price of certain preserved mushroom transactions reported by COFCO by assigning Indian surrogate values to the glass jar and caps used in those preserved mushroom transactions to reflect its U.S. customers' expenditures for these items. This preliminary decision on this matter is consistent with the Department's decision in *PRC Mushrooms 5th AR* , 70 FR at 10973. Normal Value For exports from NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-production (“FOP”) methodology if the subject merchandise is exported from an NME country and available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Section 351.408 of the Department's regulations sets forth the methodology the Department uses to calculate the NV of merchandise exported from NME countries. The Department has treated the PRC as a NME country in every proceeding involving the PRC. Because none of the parties to this proceeding contested such treatment, we calculated NV in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and

(4)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act, the FOPs which COFCO's suppliers used in producing certain preserved mushrooms include, but are not limited to, the following inputs:

(1)Hours of labor required,

(2)quantities of raw materials employed,

(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and

(4)representative capital costs, including depreciation. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department valued the FOPs, to the extent possible, using the costs of the FOP in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. We determined that India is comparable to the PRC in terms of per capita gross national product and the national distribution of labor. Furthermore, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. See *Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Office Director, Office 2* , dated May 4, 2006, regarding potential surrogate countries, which is available in the CRU—Public File. Section 773(c)(3) of the Act states that “the factors of production utilized in producing merchandise include, but are not limited to, the quantities of raw materials employed.” Therefore, the Department is required under the Act to value all inputs (including inputs which the respondent claims were provided to it purportedly free of charge). As explained in the “Export Price” section above, COFCO sufficiently supported its claim that each of its applicable U.S. customers provided its affiliated supplier, Yu Xing, the glass jars and caps, which were used for the preserved mushrooms sold to those same U.S. customers free-of-charge. For this reason, we have adjusted, where applicable, COFCO's reported U.S. prices to include the value of glass jars and caps for certain sales of preserved mushrooms in these preliminary results. In addition to making the above-referenced adjustment to COFCO's U.S. prices reported for sales of the subject merchandise which contained glass jars and caps, section 773(c)(3) of the Act requires the Department to value each factor of production used to produce the subject merchandise. Accordingly, for these preliminary results, the Department has valued the glass jars and caps usage amounts reported by COFCO for specific preserved mushrooms by using an Indian surrogate value for each input ( *see Factor Valuation Memo* ). In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, for purposes of calculating NV, we attempted to value the FOPs using surrogate values that were in effect during the POR. If we were unable to obtain surrogate values that were in effect during the POR, we adjusted the values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the effective period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or deflation adjustments for all factor values, as applicable, except labor, using the WPI for the appropriate surrogate country as published in the *IFS* . We valued the FOPs as follows:

(1)Except for rice straw, cow manure, and steam coal, we valued all reported material inputs using Indian import data from the World Trade Atlas (“WTA”) for February 2005 through January 2006, in accordance with the Department's established practice in this case ( *see e.g., PRC Mushrooms 6th AR* , 71 FR at 40477, and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comments 1 through 6).

(2)We valued rice straw using data from the 2005-2006 financial statement of Flex Foods Limited (“Flex Foods”), an Indian producer of the subject merchandise.

(3)We valued cow manure using data from the 2004-2005 financial statement of Agro Dutch Industries Limited (“Agro Dutch”), an Indian producer of the subject merchandise.

(4)We valued electricity using rates from *Energy Prices and Taxes: Second Quarter 2003 (Energy Prices)* , published by the International Energy Agency. We valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. We valued steam coal using the *Teri Energy Data Directory & Yearbook* (2004).

(5)We valued labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), using the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, and posted to Import Administration's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages* . The source of this wage rate data is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003, International Labour Office, (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing ( *http://laborsta.ilo.org* ). The years of the reported wage rates range from 1998 to 2003. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent.

(6)We derived ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit using the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 financial statements of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods. From this information, we were able to calculate factory overhead as a percentage of direct materials, labor, and energy expenses, SG&A expenses as a percentage of the total cost of manufacturing, and profit as a percentage of the sum of the total cost of manufacturing and SG&A expenses.

(7)We used truck rates published at *http://www.infreight.com* to value freight services provided to transport

(a)the finished product to the port; and

(b)direct materials, packing materials, and coal from the suppliers of the inputs to the producers. For further discussion of the surrogate values we used for these preliminary results of review, *see Memorandum From Terre Keaton Regarding Factors-of-Production Valuation for Preliminary Results* (October 31, 2006), which is on file in the CRU—Public File. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) China Processed Food Import & Export Company (which includes its affiliates China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation, COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co., Ltd., Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd., and Fujian Yu Xing Fruit & Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co.) 12 195.85 Primera Harvest Co., Ltd 195.85 Guangxi Eastwing Co., Ltd 195.85 PRC-Wide Rate (which applies to the following companies that failed to qualify for a separate rate in this review: Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian and Guangxi Yulin) 198.63 As stated above in the “Separate-Rates Determination” section of this notice, Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest both qualify for a separate rate in this review. Moreover, as stated above in the “Background” section of this notice, we limited this review by selecting the largest exporters. As section A respondents, Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest will be assigned the weighted-average dumping margin based on the calculated margins of mandatory respondents which are not *de minimis* or based on AFA, in accordance with Department practice. *See e.g., Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China* , 62 FR 9160, 9174 (February 28, 1997). Accordingly, we have assigned these two respondents the dumping margin assigned to the COFCO collapsed entity. 12 For this review, we consider COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, Xiamen, Jiahua, and Yu Xing to constitute a single entity. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice the calculations it performed for the preliminary results. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)A statement of the issue;

(2)a brief summary of the argument; and

(3)a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the public version of those comments. We will issue a memorandum identifying the date of a hearing, if one is requested. Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the COFCO collapsed entity, we have calculated customer-specific antidumping duty assessment amounts for subject merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of sales examined. We calculated these assessment amounts because there is no information on the record which identifies entered values or the importers of record for the COFCO collapsed entity's reported U.S. sales transactions. For Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest ( *i.e.* , respondents which are being assigned the margin calculated for the COFCO collapsed entity), we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on these company's entries equal to the margin these companies receive in the final results, regardless of the importer or customer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment amounts, calculated as described above, on each of the applicable entries during the review period. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will apply to all shipments of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided 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 this proceeding;

(3)for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate 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 will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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. We are issuing and publishing the preliminary results determination in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-18662 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-813] Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to timely requests by Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd. (Agro Dutch) and the petitioner, 1 the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India with respect to Agro Dutch. The period of review

(POR)is February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. 1 The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade which includes the following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc., Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Mushroom Canning Company, and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc. We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terre Keaton Stefanova or David J. Goldberger AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1280 or

(202)482-4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. *See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Administrative Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India* , 64 FR 8311 (February 19, 1999). In response to timely requests by a manufacturer/exporter, Agro Dutch, and the petitioner, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to the following companies: Agro Dutch and Himalya International, Ltd. (Himalya), 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006). The POR is February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. On April 5, 2006, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the above-mentioned companies. We received responses to these questionnaires in May 2006. On July 10, 2006, the petitioner withdrew its request for review with respect to Himalya. Accordingly, we published a *Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 42801 (July 28, 2006), with respect to this company. We issued supplemental questionnaires to Agro Dutch in July and September 2006, and received responses in July, August and October 2006. 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 preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species *Agaricus bisporus* and *Agaricus bitorquis.* “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. 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. The merchandise subject to this order is currently 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, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of certain preserved mushrooms by the respondent to the United States were made below NV, we compared export price (EP), as appropriate, to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by the respondent covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared Agro Dutch's U.S. sales to sales made in the third-country market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order: preservation method, container type, mushroom style, weight, container solution, and label type. Export Price We used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly by Agro Dutch to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price

(CEP)methodology was not otherwise indicated. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Agro Dutch reported its U.S. sales on a CIF or ex-dock duty paid basis. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for international freight, foreign inland freight, transportation insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. duty, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402. Agro Dutch claimed a freight expense offset for some of the freight expenses associated with its export shipments to the United States and Israel, the third-country market upon which we based NV. Based on the information submitted for the record of this review and consistent with our findings in the previous administrative review, we did not make this adjustment because it is not contemplated by the Act or the Department's regulations. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 67440, 67441 (November 7, 2005). These findings were upheld in the final results ( *see Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006)). Normal Value In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Agro Dutch's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. We determined that the home market was not viable for Agro Dutch because Agro Dutch's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was less than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. However, we determined that the third-country market of Israel was viable, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we used third-country sales as a basis for NV for Agro Dutch. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) ( *Plate from South Africa* ). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process from the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the “chain of distribution”), including selling functions, class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third-country prices) 2 , we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc.* v. *United States* , 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 2 Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses and profit for CV, where possible. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, and where the difference affects price comparability, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( *i.e.* , no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR at 61732-33. We obtained information from Agro Dutch regarding the marketing stages involved in sales to the reported comparison market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. Agro Dutch sold to importers/distributors through one channel of distribution in both the U.S. and Israeli markets. As described in its questionnaire response, Agro Dutch performs limited selling activities for its U.S. and third-country sales. Furthermore, any selling activities performed ( *e.g.* , sales negotiation and transportation arrangement) do not vary by channel of distribution, type of customer, or market. Therefore, Agro Dutch's sales channels are at the same LOT. Accordingly, all sales comparisons are at the same LOT for Agro Dutch and an adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is not warranted. Cost of Production Analysis In the most recently completed administrative review as of April 5, 2006, when the questionnaire was issued ( *i.e.* , the 2004-2005 review), we found that Agro Dutch had made sales below the cost of production. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Agro Dutch made sales in the third country at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period. Accordingly, we instructed Agro Dutch to respond to the section D (Cost of Production) questionnaire. A. Calculation of Cost of Production We calculated the cost of production

(COP)on a product-specific basis, based on the sum of Agro Dutch's respective costs of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, interest expense, and all expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in a condition packed and ready for shipment in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the COP information submitted by Agro Dutch, except for the direct material cost. We adjusted the can costs portion of the direct material cost to reconcile the work-in-process inventory amount reported in the response to the work-in-process inventory amount in the audited financial statements. Because the reported general and administrative expense and interest expense amounts were based on an amount that included the unadjusted direct material costs, we recalculated these expenses to incorporate the adjustment to the can costs. For further details regarding this adjustment, see “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustment for the Preliminary Results—Agro Dutch Industries Limited.” Memorandum from Michael Harrison, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director of Accounting. On a product-specific basis, we compared Agro Dutch's weighted-average COP to the prices of third-country market sales of the foreign like product, as required by section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices (inclusive of interest revenue, where appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable billing adjustments, movement charges, discounts, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing. In determining whether to disregard third-country sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act, whether such sales were made:

(1)Within an extended period of time in substantial quantities; and

(2)at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. B. Results of COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because we determined that they represented “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. The results of our cost test for Agro Dutch indicated that, for one or more products, more than 20 percent of home market or third country sales within an extended period of time were at prices below COP which would not permit the full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. *See* section 773(b)(2) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV. Price-to-Price Comparisons We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is first sold for consumption in the third country market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as EP, where possible, as defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Third country prices were based on FOB, CIF, and CFR Indian port prices. We reduced the starting price for billing adjustments and movement expenses, and increased the starting price for interest revenue, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(c) and (e). We disregarded Agro Dutch's claimed freight expense offset for certain third country sales granted under the Indian government program discussed in the “Export Price” section above, because this type of adjustment to NV is not contemplated by section 773(a)(6) of the Act or the Department's regulations. We also reduced the starting price for packing costs incurred in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and increased NV to account for U.S. packing expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses and bank fees, where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006, is as follows: Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd 0.61 We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be scheduled after determination of the briefing schedule. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:

(1)The party's name, address and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless the time period is extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)A statement of the issues, and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. With respect to Agro Dutch, we intend to calculate importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales examined. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.50 percent). *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these final results of reviews for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.30 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation ( *see Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India* , 64 FR 8311 (February 19, 1999)). These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: October 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-18669 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 102706B] Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery, Scoping Process AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement

(SEIS)and hold scoping meetings; request for comments. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) announces its intent to prepare, in cooperation with NMFS, a supplemental environmental impact statement

(SEIS)to assess the potential effects on the human environment of alternative measures for managing the Northeast

(NE)multispecies fishery pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This notice announces a public process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues relating to management of the multispecies fishery. The Council will use the scoping process and the SEIS to develop Amendment 16 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). DATES: The Council will discuss and take scoping comments at public meetings in November and December 2006 (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). Written scoping comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., local time, December 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: The Council will take scoping comments at public meetings in Ellsworth, Maine; Portland, Maine; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Gloucester, Massachusetts; Fairhaven, Massachusetts; South Kingstown, Rhode Island; Riverhead, New York; and New York City, New York. For specific locations and times, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . Written comments and requests for copies of the scoping document and other information should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, telephone

(978)465-0492. Comments may also be sent via facsimile

(fax)to

(978)465-3116 or via e-mail to *comments@nefmc.org* . Include in the subject line the following identifier: “Groundfish Amendment 16 Scoping Comments.” The scoping document is/will be accessible electronically via the Internet at *http://www.nefmc.org* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council,

(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The NE Multispecies FMP manages cod ( *Gadus morhua* ), haddock ( *Melanogrammus aeglefinus* ), white hake ( *Urophycis tenuis* ), pollock ( *Pollachius virens* ), Acadian redfish ( *Sebastes fasciatus* ), yellowtail flounder ( *Limanda ferrugineus* ), winter flounder ( *Psuedopleuronectes americanus* ), witch flounder ( *Glyptocephalus cynoglossus* ), American plaice ( *Hippoglossoides platessoides* ), windowpane flounder ( *Scopthalmus aquosos* ), Atlantic halibut ( *Hippoglossus hippoglossus* ), and ocean pout ( *Macrozoarces americanus* ). These species are managed as 19 individual stocks. The Council has managed these species as a unit under the FMP since 1985. Management measures include limited and open access permit categories, limits on fishing time through days-at-sea

(DAS)allocations, gear requirements, closed areas, and retention limits. These measures have been adopted through a series of amendments and adjustments to the original FMP. The most recent amendment (Amendment 13, implemented on May 1, 2004) established rebuilding programs for 12 stocks. For most of these overfished stocks, the goal is to rebuild to a biomass that will support maximum sustainable yield by 2014. Purpose of Action Amendment 13 established a requirement and a process for a mid-point review of rebuilding progress and adjustments to management measures as necessary to continue rebuilding. As part of this process, each groundfish stock will be assessed in 2008. Stock size and fishing mortality rates will be estimated, and status determination criteria will be reviewed. This information will be used to determine adjustments to Amendment 13 measures that are necessary to continue rebuilding and achieve optimum yield from the fishery. Amendment 16 to the FMP would implement any revisions to management measures necessary to continue the rebuilding programs adopted by Amendment 13. Amendment 16 and its accompanying SEIS will be focused on the adjustments that are necessary to comply with the mid-term adjustment procedures of the FMP, to meet the fishing mortality rate objectives of the FMP, and to ensure that all groundfish stocks rebuild. In addition to considering adjustments to the current effort control management system as modified by Amendment 13 and subsequent frameworks, the Council may consider other management systems that may replace or supplement the existing effort controls. Members of the public are encouraged to submit proposals for alternative management schemes during the scoping process. The Council will evaluate proposals received and may develop them into alternatives that will be considered in Amendment 16. To guide in the development of proposals, the Council will specify in the scoping document the types of issues that must be addressed for a proposal to warrant further consideration. A workshop will be held at a Groundfish Oversight Committee meeting on November 3, 2006, to develop advice on these standards. The Council will use the information from the workshop to establish the standards at the Council meeting on November 14 - 16, 2006. This information should be available shortly after the Council meeting. Proposals should be as fully developed as possible when submitted in order to facilitate a prompt review and decision on whether to include the proposal in the amendment. Because of the limited time available for the development of this amendment, the Council may not consider alternative management schemes that are suggested outside of the scoping process. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center is planning to assess stocks of wolffish ( *Anarhichas lupus* ) and cusk (Brosme brosme) in 2007. The Council will consider the results of those assessments when developing this action and may adopt measures necessary to manage those stocks. Measures Under Consideration The Council may consider several types of management measures to continue the multispecies rebuilding program including, but not limited to: • Changes to the current DAS management system, such as modifications to DAS allocation and use, changes to gear requirements, modified possession limits, additions or changes to seasonal and year-round closed areas, or changes to special management programs; • Recreational fishery measures such as seasons, bag limits, or area closures; • Total allowable catch management systems; • Area management systems; • Individual quota systems, including individual transferable quota systems; and • Sector management systems. The types of measures under consideration include those described in Amendment 13 as well as alternative management systems that may be suggested during this scoping process. Information on specific topics for which the Council is soliciting comment is in the scoping document, which will be available on the Council web site ( *http://www.nefmc.org* ) on or about November 15. Scoping Process It is the Council's and NMFS's intent to encourage all persons affected by or otherwise interested in the management of NE multispecies to participate in the process to determine the scope and significance of issues to be analyzed in the SEIS and amendment. All such persons are encouraged to submit written comments (see ADDRESSES ) or comment at one of the scoping meetings. Persons submitting written comments may wish to address the specific measures introduced in the previous section. The scope of the SEIS consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered. Alternatives may include the following: not amending the FMP (taking no action); developing an amendment that contains management measures such as those discussed in this notice; or other reasonable courses of action. Impacts may be direct, indirect, or cumulative. This scoping process also will identify and eliminate from further detailed analysis issues that are not significant. After the scoping process is completed, the Council will proceed with the development of Amendment 16 and the Council will prepare an SEIS to analyze the impacts of the range of alternatives considered in the amendment. To ensure that the fishery continues to meet the Amendment 13 rebuilding objectives, any revisions to management measures included in Amendment 16 need to be implemented by May 1, 2009. In order to incorporate the latest catch and survey data into the proposed adjustment, the assessment of groundfish stocks scheduled for 2008 (the Groundfish Assessment and Review Meeting, or GARM) cannot be conducted until August 2008. Therefore, because of the lengthy process involved with evaluating the impacts of any changes to the FMP, the Council and NMFS propose to start the environmental review process as early as possible. As such, it will be necessary to develop and publish a draft SEIS for Amendment 16 using the best available data prior to the August 2008 GARM. The intent is to fully evaluate an adequate range of alternatives in the draft SEIS to project the full range of likely impacts resulting from any proposed adjustments to management measures. The Council will then hold public hearings to receive comments on the draft amendment and on the analysis of its impacts presented in the draft SEIS. Once the GARM has evaluated the status of groundfish stocks in August 2008, that information will be incorporated into the final SEIS to further refine the precision of the impact analysis presented in the draft SEIS. Scoping Hearing Schedule The Council will discuss and take scoping comments at the following public meetings: 1. Monday, November 27, 2006, from 5 - 8 p.m.; Holiday Inn, US Route 1&3, Ellsworth, ME 04605; telephone:(207) 667-9341. 2. Tuesday, November 28, 2006, from 5 - 8 p.m.; Eastland Park Hotel, 157 High Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone:

(207)775-5411. 3. Wednesday, November 29, 2006, from 5 - 8 p.m.; Urban Forestry Center, 45 Elwyn Road, Portsmouth, NH; telephone:(603) 431-6774. 4. Thursday, November 30, 2006, from 5 - 8 p.m.; Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries Annisquam River Station, 30 Emerson Avenue, Gloucester, MA 01950;

(978)282-0308. 5. Tuesday, December 5, 2006, from 5 - 8 p.m.; Best Western East End, 1830 Route 25, Riverhead, NY 11901; telephone:

(631)369-2200. 6. Wednesday, December 6, 2006, from 5 - 8 p.m.; Holiday Inn South Kingstown, 3009 Tower Hill Road, So. Kingstown, RI 02674; telephone:

(401)789-1051. 7. Thursday, December 7, 2006, from 5 - 8 p.m.; Holiday Inn Express, 110 Middle Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719; telephone:

(508)997-1281. 8. Wednesday, December 12, 2006, from 7 - 9 p.m.; Skyline Hotel,725 10th Avenue, New York, NY 10019; telephone:

(212)586-3400. Special Accommodations These meetings are accessible to people with physical disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: October 30, 2006. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-18682 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 103006C] Marine Mammals; File No. 373-1868 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Point Reyes Bird Observatory

(PRBO)Conservation Science (Dr. William J. Sydeman, Responsible Party), 3820 Cypress Drive, # 11 Petaluma, CA 94954 has applied in due form for a permit for scientific research on pinnipeds in California. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments on the new applications, amendment requests must be received on or before December 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: The applications and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the relevant document identifier: File No. 373-1868. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Sloan or Dr. Tammy Adams, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The PRBO proposes to study and monitor population trends, health, and ecology of pinnipeds in California, specifically at the Farallon Islands, Point Reyes Peninsula, Ano Nuevo Island, San Francisco Bay, and in Sonoma County near the Russian River. Harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina richardii* ) and northern elephant seals ( *Mirounga angustirostris* ) are the primary species of study; researchers will also remotely survey California sea lions ( *Zalophus californianus* ), Steller sea lions ( *Eumetopias jubatus* ), and northern fur seals ( *Callorhinus ursinus* ) and their responses to changes in the environment. By monitoring these species, managers will be alerted to changes in the condition of pinniped populations and of the coastal marine ecosystems of central California. Research and monitoring activities will include

(1)capture and handling of harbor seals and northern elephant seals in order to dye-mark, attach flipper tags and scientific instruments, and collect tissue samples,

(2)surveys and photo-documentation of all species in order to quantify numbers by sex and age class annually and seasonally, and

(3)incidental Level B disturbances related to research activities. An estimated maximum of 300 harbor seals and 3,050 elephant seals will be captured or handled per year over a five year period, and an estimated 300 elephant seals, 5,150 harbor seals, 600 California sea lions, and five northern fur seals will be incidentally disturbed during pinniped research operations. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of these applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: October 31, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-18683 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 100406A] Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Harbor Redevelopment Project, Moss Landing Harbor, California AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental take authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA)as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental Harassment Authorization

(IHA)has been issued to the Moss Landing Harbor District (MLHD), to take small numbers of Pacific harbor seals and California sea lions, by harassment, incidental to the harbor redevelopment project in Moss Landing Harbor, California. DATES: This authorization is effective from November 1, 2006 until October 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, IHA, and supporting documents for this action may be obtained by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning the contact listed below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, NMFS,

(301)713-2289, ext 137, or Monica DeAngelis, NMFS,

(562)980-3232. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and

(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will be small, have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which

(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or

(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. Summary of Request On April 24, 2006, NMFS received a request from the Terrestrial and Aquatic Biological Resources, on behalf of MLHD, to take small numbers of Pacific harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina richardsi* ) and California sea lions ( *Zalophus californianus* ) incidental to the North Harbor Redevelopment Project in Moss Landing Harbor, Monterey County, California. The project includes construction of a 100-ft (30.5-m) long by 90-ft (27.4-m) wide boat ramp, a 5,000-square foot (464.5-m 2 ) public wharf with pedestrian promenade and seating areas, and installation of a 171-ft long (52.1-m) by 10-ft (3.1-m) wide floating dock. The total proposed project site is 4.5 acres (18,211.5 m 2 ). The construction phase of the redevelopment would involve driving a total of 72 piles: 9 for the boat ramp, 53 for the public wharf and promenade, and 10 for the floating dock. Installation of the pilings would most likely be from a land-based driver, however, a barge may be used for installation. The pilings will be concrete, 16-inch square for the wharf and the boat launch ramp boarding floats, and 20-inch square for the dock. An impact hammer is required for installation of the piles. The energy output levels of the impact hammer are approximately 48 - 94 kiloJoules

(kJ)(or 35,381 - 69,458 foot-pound force (ft-lbs)), depending on the setting. The hammer would be operating at the rate of 36 - 52 blows per minute. The underwater noise level is measured at approximately between 165 - 175 dB re 1 microPa rms at 10 m (32.8 ft), and 155 - 170 dB re 1 microPa rms at 20 m (65.6 ft). It takes approximately 5 - 20 minutes drive time to install each pile, depending on the substrate encountered. Therefore, the maximum time required to install all piles would be 24 hours. The pile driving is estimated to be completed within 2 - 3 months. The proposed project would start in fall 2006. Comments and Responses A notice of receipt and request for 30-day public comment on the application and the proposed authorization was published in the Federal Resister on September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53086). No comments were received during the 30-day public comment period. NMFS requested the review of the Marine Mammal Commission (the Commission) for the IHA application and proposed authorization. The Commission concurred with NMFS' determination that the proposed activities are unlikely to have a significant impact on the affected marine mammal populations. Description of the Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by the Activity The affected species of marine mammals that may occur near the proposed project site are Pacific harbor seals and California sea lions. General information on these marine mammal species can be found in Caretta *et al.* (2006), which is available at the following URL: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2005.pdf* . None of the marine mammals species found in the proposed project areas is listed under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Additional information on the abundance and occurrence of these species within or close to the proposed project area is presented below. Pacific harbor seal Pacific harbor seals are mainly seen on the sand bar at the North area of the harbor (North Harbor), which is about 575 ft (175.3 m) west from the proposed project area, across a Federal navigation channel. They are also seen along the boat dock area, and swimming to and from the ocean. The North Harbor sand bar is not a typical Pacific harbor seal pupping area. The closest known seal pupping area is over 0.5 mile (0.8 km) east of the proposed project area at Seal Bend in Elkhorn Slough (NMFS, 2004). The number of Pacific harbor seals varies seasonally and with the time of day. They are most abundant during the day with approximately 20 - 100 individuals at the North Harbor sand bar, but leave the sand bar in the evening to feed in Monterey Bay. The number of seals are most abundant during the pupping and molting season from May to August. California sea lion California sea lions have been seen on the North Harbor docks, but their occurrence within the proposed project area is rare. Usually there are fewer than 2 individuals in the vicinity of Moss Landing Harbor (L. McIntyre, MLHD, 2006). Most of the sea lions in the Monterey Bay area are males of varying age classes that arrive in early fall from their southern breeding ground (Monterey Bay Aquarium, 1999). Many individuals remain over the course of the winter until the following spring, with just a few sea lions staying through the summer. There are no breeding areas for the California sea lion located in the Monterey Bay area, and most individuals migrate to offshore breeding sites in southern California and Mexico (NMFS, 2004). Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat Construction of the boat ramp, public wharf and promenade, and floating docks has the potential to result in Level B behavioral harassment of Pacific harbor seals and California sea lions that may be swimming, foraging, or resting in the project vicinity while pile driving is being conducted. The impact to these marine mammals is expected to be disturbance by the presence of workers, construction noise, and possibly construction vessel traffic if pile driving is to be conducted from a barge. Disturbances could alter seal and sea lion behaviors and cause the animals to temporarily disperse from the area, or to flush and possibly return at a later time or could result in temporary use of an alternate haul out site in Monterey Bay. Noise from pile driving is expected to be much louder than all other noises from the construction. However, the impact hammer being selected has energy levels at 48-94 kJ (35,381-69,458 ft-lbs). These energy levels are significantly less than either of the two pile drivers being used on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SF-OBB) (see 68 FR 64595, November 14, 2003), which are 500 kJ and 1,700 kJ. As a result, airborne and underwater impact zones for marine mammals (and other aquatic life) will be significantly smaller than at SF-OBB. Based on underwater noise levels measured in 2004 during a separate project at Pier 40 in San Francisco, the hammer's impulses were recorded approximately between 165-175 dB re 1 microPa rms at 10 m (32.8 ft), and 155-170 dB re 1 microPa rms at 20 m (65.6 ft) from the pile. These levels are significantly below 190 dB re 1 microPa rms, the level NMFS uses to estimate Level A harassment of pinnipeds and the onset of temporary threshold shift

(TTS)in pinniped hearing (see 68 FR 64595, November 14, 2003). A self-monitoring program was also conducted by a contractor in July 2006 to obtain airborne noise levels from pile driving. Time-averaged acoustic values in air ranged from 80 to 90 dB re 20 microPa, with peak discrete values approaching 100 dB re 20 microPa at 250 feet (76 m) from the sound source (Sea Engineering Inc., 2006). Studies have shown that when exposed to sound levels between 98.9 and 101 dB (re 20 microPa) from rocket launch, harbor seals responded by fleeing into the water but many returned to land within several hours (Stewart, 1993). Ringed seals ( *Phoca hispida* ) exhibited little or no reaction to pipe-driving noise measured at 112 and 96 dB re 20 microPa and 90 dB re 20 microPa 2 s (Blackwell *et al.* , 2004). Mitigation The following mitigation measures are required under the IHA that has been issued to MLHD for construction activities, including pile driving, associated with the harbor redevelopment project at Moss Landing Harbor. NMFS believes that the implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce impacts to marine mammals to the lowest level practicable. Time and Duration The pile driving of the construction will be completed before December 2006 to avoid the migrating gray whales ( *Eschrichtius robustus* ). Construction activities, including pile driving, will only take place during daylight hours between 7 am to 5 pm, when marine mammal monitoring prior to and during the pile driving can be effectively implemented. Establishment of Safety Zones Before any pile driving, a clearly marked 250-ft (76 m) radius safety zone for Pacific harbor seals and California sea lions will be established. The safety zone would be marked by buoys for easy monitoring. At these distances, underwater sound pressure levels

(SPLs)are expected to be significantly reduced from 165 - 175 dB re 1 microPa rms measured at 10 m (32.8 ft), and airborne noise levels are expected to be about 80 - 90 dB re 20 microPa. These SPLs are not believed to cause Level A harassment or onset of TTS (Level B harassment). A 500-ft radius safety zone was proposed in the proposed IHA (71 FR 53086), however, acoustic monitoring data show that it is overly conservative and would be difficult to monitor such a large area. Based on in-water and in-air acoustic monitoring data, NMFS believes that a 250-ft radius safety zone is sufficient to prevent Level A harassment and onset of TTS. Marine mammal observers

(MMOs)on a boat will survey the safety zone to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zone before pile driving begins. If marine mammals are found within the safety zone, pile driving will be delayed until they move out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above the water and then dives below, pile driving will wait 15 minutes and if no marine mammals are seen by the observer in that time it will be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the safety zone. This 15-minute criterion is based on scientific evidence that harbor seals in San Francisco Bay dive for a mean time of 0.50 minutes to 3.33 minutes (Harvey and Torok, 1994). Once pile driving begins and an animal is seen or believed to entered the 250 ft (76 m) radius safety zone, the contractor must suspend pile driving and wait till the animal leaves the safety zone, or 15 minutes after the last sighting of the animal, before pile driving starts. Soft Start Although marine mammals will be protected from Level A harassment by establishment of a safety zone of 250-ft (76 m) radius, mitigation may not be 100 percent effective at all times in locating marine mammals. In order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the project area by allowing marine mammals to vacate the area, thus further reducing the incidence of Level B harassment from startling marine mammals with a sudden intensive sound, MLHD will implement a “soft start” practice when startup pile driving. By implementing the “soft start” practice, pile driving would be initiated at an energy level less than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40-60 percent energy levels) for at least 5 minutes before gradually escalate to full capacity. This would ensure that, although not expected, any pinnipeds that are undetected during safety zone monitoring will not be injured. Compliance with Equipment Noise Standards To mitigate noise levels and, therefore, impacts to Pacific harbor seals and California sea lions, all construction equipment will comply as much as possible with applicable equipment noise standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and all construction equipment will have noise control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. Monitoring and Reporting MLHD must implement a monitoring plan that would collect data for each distinct marine mammal species observed during pile driving at the Moss Landing Harbor construction site. Marine mammal behavior, overall numbers of individuals observed, frequency of observation, and any behavioral changes due to the pile driving will be recorded. Monitoring will be conducted by qualified NMFS-approved biologists. Binoculars and range finders will be provided to MMOs for accurately identifying species and determining distances. Monitoring will begin prior to the first day of the pile driving to establish baseline data, and occur during the entire period when pile driving is underway, and continue for 30 minutes after the pile driving. Post construction monitoring will also be conducted for a period of one day upon completion of pile driving to identify any change of pinniped behaviors. Before the startup of the pile driving, MMOs would visually survey the area to confirm the safety zone is clear of any marine mammals. Pile driving will not begin until the safety zone is clear of marine mammals. Monitoring would continue by the observers on a boat during the entire period of pile driving. However, as described in the Mitigation section, once pile driving begins, operations will continue uninterrupted until that pile is installed. However, if driving of a pile is completed and a marine mammal is sighted within the designated safety zone prior to commencement of the next pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the pile driver (or other authorized individual) immediately and follow the mitigation requirements as outlined previously (see Mitigation). MLHD will submit a final report to NMFS 90 days after completion of the project. The final report will include data collected for each distinct marine mammal species observed in the vicinity of the construction area during pile driving. Marine mammal behavior, overall numbers of individuals observed, frequency of observation, and any behavioral changes due to the pile driving would also be included in the final report. ESA Based on a review conducted by NMFS biologists, no ESA-listed species are expected to occur in the proposed action area. NMFS has determined that no species listed under the ESA are likely to be affected and, therefore, a section 7 consultation is not warranted. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)on the issuance of an IHA for the taking of marine mammals incidental to demolition of the Sandholdt Road Bridge and construction of a new bridge in Moss Landing, California, in 2004 and made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on December 21, 2004. The proposed action discussed in this document is not substantially different from the action analyzed in the 2004 EA, and a reference search has indicated that no significant new scientific information or analyses have been developed in the past 2 years that would warrant new NEPA documentation. Therefore, a new EA is not warranted for the proposed project. Determinations For the reasons discussed in this document and identified supporting documents, NMFS has determined that the impact of pile driving associated with Moss Landing Harbor redevelopment project would result, at worst, in the Level B harassment of small numbers of Pacific harbor seals and California sea lions in the vicinity of the proposed project area. While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the pile driving, may be made by these species to avoid the resultant visual and acoustic disturbance, the availability of alternate areas near Monterey Bay and haul-out sites (including pupping sites) and feeding areas within the Bay has led NMFS to determine that this action will have a negligible impact on small numbers of Pacific harbor seal and California sea lion populations near the proposed project area. In addition, no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated and harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned previously in this document. Authorization NMFS has issued an IHA to MLHD for the potential harassment of small numbers of harbor seals and California sea lions incidental to Moss Landing Harbor redevelopment project in Moss Landing, California, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: October 31, 2006. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-18690 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 101706F ] National Marine Fisheries Service; Notice of Availability of the Interim Final Ten Year Plan for the NOAA Aquaculture Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of the Interim Final Ten Year Plan for the NOAA Aquaculture Program. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service announce the availability of the Interim Final Ten Year Plan for the NOAA Aquaculture Program (Plan). The Plan addresses NOAA's involvement in marine aquaculture in the United States over the next ten years. It includes Program Goals and Strategies, Outcomes, Benefits, Budget and Staffing Requirements, and Challenges. The Plan was prepared by NOAA at the request of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC) which advises the Secretary of Commerce on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. At its July 25-27, 2006 meeting, the MAFAC reviewed the Plan and recommended that it be formally adopted by NOAA. Before taking this step, NOAA is providing the public an opportunity to comment on the Plan . DATES: NOAA invites electronic and written comments on the Plan. All comments should be submitted by the close of business November 30, 2006 to ensure consideration.Comments submitted after that date will be considered to the extent possible. ADDRESSES: The Plan and information about the NOAA Aquaculture Program are available on the NOAA Worldwide Web site at: *http://www.aquaculture.noaa.gov* . Electronic comments should be submitted to *NOAA.Aquaculture@noaa.gov* .Requests for hard copies of the Plan and/or submission of written comments should be directed to the NOAA Aquaculture Program, 1315 East-West Highway, room 13117, Silver Spring, MD 20910; by fax at

(301)713-9108; or by phone at

(301)713-9079. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Morehead or Kate Naughten, NOAA Aquaculture Program, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service,1315 East-West Highway, room 13117, Silver Spring, MD 20910,

(301)713-9079 or email at: *bruce.morehead@noaa.gov* or *kate.naughten@noaa.gov* . Dated: November 1, 2006. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-18701 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Rachel Potter, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to

(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:

(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: October 31, 2006. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Annual State Application Under Part C of the IDEA as Amended in 2004. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 56. Burden Hours: 560. *Abstract:* The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, signed on December 3, 2004, became Public Law 108-446. In order to be eligible for a grant under 20 U.S.C. 1433, a State shall provide assurance to the Secretary that the State has adopted a policy that appropriate early intervention services are available to all infants and toddlers with disabilities in the State and their families, including Indian infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families residing on a reservation geographically located in the State, infants and toddlers with disabilities who are homeless children and their families, and has in effect a statewide system that meets the requirements of 20 U.S.C. 1435. Information Collection 1820-0550 is being revised so that a State can provide assurances that it either has or does not have in effect policies, procedures, methods, descriptions, and assurances that meet the application requirements of part C of the Act as found in Public Law 108-446. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3172. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E6-18660 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Rachel Potter, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to

(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Type of review requested, *e.g.* new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(ICDR)agencies. Respondents will be persons with disabilities and other targeted individuals such as caregivers. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3164. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E6-18661 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (ED). ACTION: Notice of open teleconference meeting. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming open meeting of The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee. The notice also describes the functions of the Committee. Notice of this meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of their opportunity to attend. DATES: November 20, 2006. *Time:* 2 p.m. est. ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet by telephone conference call. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Davis, Executive Director, The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee, Room 1E110B, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC telephone:

(202)205-4169, e-mail: *OSDFSC@ed.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was established to provide advice to the Secretary on Federal, State and local programs designed to create safe and drug-free schools, and on issues related to crisis planning. The agenda for the November 20th meeting will include follow-up discussions on the October 23-24, 2006 hearing, and focusing on preparation of an interim report recently requested by the Secretary of Education. The October hearing focused on issues relating to the Unsafe School Choice Option and Identification of Persistently Dangerous Schools. There will not be an opportunity for public comment during this meeting, however the public may listen to the conference call by calling 800-473-8796, and asking for the Teleconference Chairperson: Deborah Price. Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to listen to the meeting may access a TYY line by calling 800-473-8796, and asking for the Teleconference Chairperson: Deborah Price. *Request for Written Comments:* We invite the public to submit written comments relevant to the focus of the Advisory Committee. We would like to receive written comments from members of the public no later than April 30, 2007. *Addresses:* Submit all comments to the Advisory Committee using one of the following methods:

(1)*Internet.* We encourage the public to submit comments through the Internet to the following address: *OSDFSC@ed.gov*

(2)*Mail.* The public may also submit your comments via mail to Catherine Davis, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 1E110B, Washington, DC 20202. Due to delays in mail delivery caused by heightened security, please allow adequate time for the mail to be received. Records are kept of all Committee proceedings and are available for public inspection at the staff office for the Committee from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. est. Ray Simon, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education. [FR Doc. 06-9082 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 23

Traces to 23 documents

CFR