Rules and Regulations. Notice of electronic public discussion
14,343 words·~65 min read·
/register/2006/11/13/06-9185A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P 71 218 Monday, November 13, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0078] Evaluating the Invasive Potential of Imported Plants; Electronic Public Discussion AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of electronic public discussion. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is hosting an electronic public discussion on methods that can be used to evaluate the potential of imported plants to become invasive species if they are introduced into the United States.
Any interested person can register for the electronic discussion, which will allow participants to upload files and interact with other participants and with APHIS staff. DATES: The electronic public discussion will be held from November 27, 2006 to January 26, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Polly Lehtonen, Senior Staff Officer, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-8758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 *et seq* .), *noxious weed* is defined as: “Any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment.” The Plant Protection Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake such actions as may be necessary to prevent the introduction and spread of plant pests and noxious weeds within the United States. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The regulations in 7 CFR part 360, “Noxious Weed Regulations,” contain restrictions on the movement of noxious weed plants or plant products listed in that part into or through the United States and interstate. To add a plant to the list of noxious weeds in part 360, or to remove a plant from that list, APHIS conducts a pest risk analysis. One part of this analysis is an evaluation of the potential of the plant to become an invasive species. (The term *invasive species* is defined by Executive Order 13112 as a species that is:
(1)Non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and
(2)whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. The first part of this definition includes all imported plants that are not present in the United States; the second part is consistent with the definition of *noxious weed* in the Plant Protection Act, as quoted above. Accordingly, we make a determination regarding a plant's potential for invasiveness when determining whether to add the plant to the noxious weed list in part 360.) If the pest risk analysis indicates that a change should be made to the regulations, we undertake rulemaking to do so. Since it is impossible to determine definitively whether a plant that is not present in the United States will become invasive when introduced to the United States without actually introducing the plant, APHIS uses other types of scientific information to help make judgments about whether a plant, if imported, would be likely to be invasive. Several years ago, APHIS commissioned an evaluation of the state of scientific knowledge about biological invasions and the state of our ability to reliably predict the outcome of accidental or intentional introductions of nonindigenous species. The National Research Council established the Committee on the Scientific Basis for Predicting the Invasive Potential of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests in the United States to complete this evaluation. The resulting study, published in 2002, concluded that the record of a plant's invasiveness in other geographical areas is currently the most reliable predictor of the plant's ability to establish itself and become invasive when introduced into the United States. 1 1 The study is available for purchase through the Internet at *http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10259.html* . The study further concluded that there are currently no known broad scientific principles or reliable procedures for evaluating the invasive potential of plants in geographic ranges where they are not present, but that a conceptual basis for understanding invasions exists, and this conceptual basis could be developed into principles for predicting invasiveness. The study recommended that the framework APHIS uses to evaluate imported plants for potential release as forage, crops, soil reclamation, and ornamental landscaping should be expanded to include evaluation of the hazards these species might pose. The study also recommended that controlled experimental field screening for potentially invasive species be pursued for species whose features are associated with establishment and rapid spread without cultivation and whose history of introduction into the United States is unknown. To follow up on these recommendations, we are requesting an exchange of ideas and information about methods to evaluate plants for potential invasiveness. The information will be helpful for both the APHIS noxious weed program and the revision of the nursery stock quarantine regulations in 7 CFR part 319 (§§ 319.37 through 319.37-14). (The revision of the nursery stock regulations was discussed in general terms in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking published in the **Federal Register** on December 10, 2004 [69 FR 71736-71744, Docket No. 03-069-1].) As part of the revision of the nursery stock regulations, we anticipate publishing a proposed rule at some point following this electronic discussion that will solicit public comment on establishing a category of plants whose importation is not authorized pending pest risk analysis based on other scientific evidence that indicates invasive potential. Because we would be performing pest risk analyses to remove plants from that category and either allow their importation or add them to the list of prohibited noxious weeds, we would like to ensure that our pest risk analysis process for potentially invasive plants is able to evaluate the risk posed by these plants as thoroughly and rigorously as possible. Members of the APHIS Weed Team will participate in the electronic discussion. We will share all data and opinions offered during the discussion with other groups that are interested in methods to predict invasiveness for both plants and animals, such as the National Invasive Species Council Pathways Work Team and the North American Plant Protection Organization Invasive Species Panel. Questions for Discussion We would like participants in the electronic discussion to specifically address the following six questions, although general comments on the issue of evaluating invasiveness will be accepted as well. 1. What criteria, other than whether the plant has a history of invasiveness elsewhere, are most useful to determine the invasiveness of a plant introduced into the United States for the first time? 2. When there is little or no existing scientific literature or other information describing the invasiveness of a plant species, how much should we extrapolate from information on congeners (other species within the same genus)? 3. What specific scientific experiments should be conducted to best evaluate a plant's invasive potential? Should these experiments be conducted in a foreign area, in the United States, or both? 4. How should the results of such experiments be interpreted? Specifically, what results should be interpreted as providing conclusive information for a regulatory decision? 5. If field trials are necessary to determine the invasive potential of a plant, under what conditions should the research be conducted to prevent the escape of the plant into the environment? 6. What models or techniques are being used by the nursery industry, weed scientists, seed companies, botanical gardens, and others to screen plants that have not yet been widely introduced into the United States for invasiveness? What species have been rejected by these evaluators as a result of the use of these evaluation methods? Accessing the Electronic Discussion The electronic public discussion will be held from November 27, 2006 to January 26, 2007. We are beginning the discussion 2 weeks after this notice is published in the **Federal Register** to give participants time to consider the questions and assemble any relevant information. While anyone can access the discussion and read the comments, registration is required in order to participate in the discussion. You will be asked to register at the time you post your comment. The discussion will be accessible through a link on Plant Protection and Quarantine's Web page for the nursery stock revision, *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html.* Participants will be required to enter their name and e-mail address. Affiliation and mailing address are optional. Only the participant names will be publicly displayed; the other information will allow us to contact you to resolve technical difficulties or request additional information or clarification. When the discussion begins, there will be a link to access the discussion itself on the nursery stock revision Web page. The discussion will be convened using IBM Domino software, which allows participants to upload and view files as well as make posts in the discussion. The IBM Domino software supports Microsoft Internet Explorer and other major Web browsers for both Windows and Macintosh systems. Technical support will be available during the discussion. There is no cost to participate in the discussion. Because APHIS staff will review posts as they are submitted, there may be some delay between the submission of a post and its availability in the public discussion. Multiple APHIS staff members will be monitoring the discussion, and we will try to minimize any delays. If you wish to submit comments or other information on the topics described in this notice, but you do not wish to be part of the electronic discussion, you may send your comments via postal mail or commercial delivery to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the beginning of this notice. Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of November 2006. W. Ron DeHaven, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-18768 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Domestic Sugar Program—Final 2005-Crop and Initial 2006-Crop Cane Sugar and Sugar Beet Marketing Allotments and Company Allocations AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the final 2005-crop and initial 2006-crop cane state allotments and company allocations to sugarcane and sugar beet processors. The 2005-crop year runs from October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006 (fiscal year
(FY)2006). The 2006-crop (FY 2007) cane state allotments and company allocations are based on an 8.750 million short tons, raw value
(STRV)overall allotment quantity
(OAQ)of domestic sugar. These actions apply to all domestic sugar marketed for human consumption in the United States from October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007. Although CCC already has announced all of the information in this notice, CCC is statutorily required to publish in the **Federal Register** determinations establishing, adjusting, or suspending sugar marketing allotments. ADDRESSES: Barbara Fecso, Dairy and Sweeteners Analysis Group, Economic Policy and Analysis Staff, Farm Service Agency, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0516, Washington, DC 20250-0516; telephone
(202)720-4146; FAX
(202)690-1480; e-mail: *barbara.fecso@wdc.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Fecso at
(202)720-4146. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Final FY 2006 State Allotments and Company Allocations Section 359e(b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 1359ee(b) requires the Secretary to reassign allocation to imports if it is determined that processors will be unable to market their allocations and there is no CCC inventory. In a July 27, 2006 news release, CCC announced that the agency had determined that the domestic sugar supply would be unable to fill 246,000 STRV of the OAQ and, in accordance with the statute, reassigned this deficit to imports. Hence, state allotments and company allocations were adjusted downward to reflect each company's and each state's ability to market its allocation and allotment. The final 2005-crop (FY 2006) beet and cane sugar marketing allotments and allocations are listed in the following table: FY 2006 Overall Beet/Cane Allotments and Allocations Distribution FY 2006 Allotments/ allocations as of 3/22/06 Change due to reassignments Final FY 2006 allotments/ allocations Beet Sugar 4,839,725 −63,345 4,776,380 Cane Sugar 3,164,275 −182,655 2,981,620 WTO Raw Sugar Tariff Rate Quota
(TRQ)1 670,000 75,000 745,000 Mexico TRQ Raw or Refined 276,000 0 276,000 Refined TRQ (global first-come, first-served) 400,000 109,921 509,921 FY 2006 Non Program Imports 0 61,079 61,079 Total OAQ 9,350,000 0 9,350,000 Beet Processors' Marketing Allocations: Amalgamated Sugar Co 1,158,015 −79,225 1,078,790 American Crystal Sugar Co 1,731,118 6,000 1,737,118 Michigan Sugar Co 467,030 3,984 471,014 Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op 279,237 4,085 283,322 So. Minn Beet Sugar Co-op 677,756 2,486 680,242 Western Sugar Co 473,047 462 473,509 Wyoming Sugar Co 53,521 −1,136 52,385 Total Beet Sugar 4,839,725 −63,345 4,776,380 State Cane Sugar Allotments: Florida 1,445,792 −78,164 1,367,628 Louisiana 1,273,054 −76,279 1,196,775 Texas 180,425 −4,095 176,330 Hawaii 265,003 −24,116 240,887 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 Total Cane Sugar 3,164,275 −182,655 2,981,620 Cane Processors' Marketing Allocations: Florida Florida Crystals 507,121 −11,388 495,733 Growers Co-op. of FL 265,129 −3,913 261,216 U.S. Sugar Corp 673,542 −62,863 610,679 Total 1,445,792 −78,164 1,367,628 Louisiana Alma Plantation 131,302 −3,141 128,161 Cajun Sugar Co-op 124,626 −10,892 113,734 Cora-Texas Mfg. Co 153,001 −13,707 139,294 Lafourche Sugars Corp 73,075 −1,527 71,548 Louisiana Sugarcane Co-op 94,036 −4,036 90,000 Lula Westfield, LLC 168,219 −5,177 163,043 M.A. Patout & Sons 345,197 −31,152 314,044 St. Mary Sugar Co-op 106,250 −2,100 104,150 So. Louisiana Sugars Co-op 77,347 −4,546 72,801 Total 1,273,054 −76,279 1,196,775 Texas Rio Grande Valley 180,425 −4,095 176,330 Hawaii Gay & Robinson, Inc 54,638 −2 54,636 Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company 210,366 −24,115 186,251 Total 265,003 −24,116 240,887 1 7/27/06 is for early entry FY07 raw sugar TRQ. Initial FY 2007 State Allotments and Company Allocations Section 359b(b)(1) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(b)(1) requires the Secretary to establish, by the beginning of each crop year, an appropriate allotment for the marketing by processors of sugar processed from sugar beets and from domestically produced cane sugar at a level the Secretary estimates will result in no forfeitures of sugar to CCC under the loan program. When CCC announced the 8.750 million ton OAQ for FY 2007 in July 2006, it distributed 54.35 percent of the FY 2007 OAQ (4,755,625 STRV) to the beet sugar allotment. At that time, however, CCC determined that the cane sector would be unable to fill 375,000 STRV of its allotment and, hence, withheld this amount for reassignment to imports. Consequently, of the 45.65 percent of the OAQ statutorily allotted to the cane sector (3,994,375 STRV), only 3,619,375 STRV was allotted to cane states for allocation to sugarcane processors. Cane state allotments and processor allocations were announced by CCC on September 28, 2006. To establish beet processor allocations, CCC applies the beet sector's allotment to fixed company allocation shares. Likewise, cane state and cane processor allocations are calculated by applying fixed shares to the cane sugar allotment. Allocation amounts will change only if CCC determines that a processor cannot fill its sugar allocation for the year and reassigns the unused allocation to other processors or if a sugarcane grower successfully transfers allocation commensurate with his production history to another processor. On September 28, 2006, CCC transferred a portion of Alma Plantation L.L.C.'s allocation to Cora Texas Manufacturing Company based on growers' petitions to transfer allocation when Alma closed its Cinclare factory. CCC is required to limit the amount of sugarcane acreage that may be harvested in Louisiana for sugar or seed whenever marketing allotments are in effect and the quantity of sugarcane estimated to be produced in Louisiana, plus a reasonable carryover, exceeds the marketing allotment allocation for Louisiana. This limitation is referred to as a “proportionate share,” and is applied to each farm's sugarcane acreage base to determine the quantity of sugarcane that may be harvested on that farm. Because production is expected to be inadequate to fill Louisiana's FY 2007 allotment, CCC has determined that there will be no proportionate share restrictions for the 2006 crop year. In FY 2004, CCC determined that Puerto Rico's processors permanently terminated operations because no sugar had been processed for two complete years. Consequently, the allocation of 6,356 STRV was permanently reassigned to the mainland cane-producing states. Hawaii received none of Puerto Rico's reassignment because it is not expected to use all of its current cane sugar allotment. A request for an allocation as a new entrant would be required for any mills in Puerto Rico to market cane sugar in the future. The established 2006-crop (FY 2007) beet and cane sugar marketing allotments are listed in the following table: FY 2007 Overall Beet/Cane Allotments And Allocations Distribution Initial FY 2007 allotments/ allocations Changes due to reassignments Adjusted initial FY 2007 allotments/ allocations Beet Sugar 4,755,625 0 4,755,625 Cane Sugar 3,994,375 −375,000 3,619,375 Reassignment to Imports 0 375,000 375,000 Total OAQ 8,750,000 0 8,750,000 Beet Processors' Marketing Allocations: Amalgamated Sugar Co 990,810 0 990,810 American Crystal Sugar Co 1,828,960 0 1,828,960 Michigan Sugar Co 477,920 0 477,920 Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op 296,690 0 296,690 So. Minn Beet Sugar Co-op 624,582 0 624,582 Western Sugar Co 473,221 0 473,221 Wyoming Sugar Co 63,441 0 63,441 Total Beet Sugar 4,755,625 0 4,755,625 State Cane Sugar Allotments: Florida 1,975,622 −213,359 1,762,263 Louisiana 1,528,365 −143,141 1,385,224 Texas 171,744 28,680 200,424 Hawaii 318,644 −47,179 271,465 Total Cane Sugar 3,994,375 −375,000 3,619,375 Cane Processors' Marketing Allocations: Florida Florida Crystals 813,415 −128,606 684,809 Growers Co-op. of FL 355,385 −45,052 310,334 U.S. Sugar Corp 806,821 −39,701 767,120 Total 1,975,622 −213,359 1,762,263 Louisiana Alma Plantation 127,988 −7,199 120,789 Cajun Sugar Co-op 154,543 −28,052 126,491 Cora-Texas Mfg. Co 159,455 14,258 173,712 Lafourche Sugars Corp 83,245 115 83,359 Louisiana Sugarcane Co-op 117,521 −13,867 103,654 Lula Westfield, LLC 180,483 10,756 191,239 M.A. Patout & Sons 429,373 −15,647 413,726 St. Mary Sugar Co-op 155,667 −43,313 112,354 So. Louisiana Sugars Co-op 120,091 −60,191 59,900 Total 1,528,365 −143,141 1,385,224 Texas Rio Grande Valley 171,744 28,680 200,424 Hawaii Gay & Robinson, Inc 73,145 −25,618 47,527 Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company 245,499 −21,561 223,938 Total 318,644 −47,179 271,465 Signed in Washington, DC, on November 2, 2006. Teresa C. Lasseter, Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-19077 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Extension of Certain Timber Sale Contracts; Finding of Substantial Overriding Public Interest AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of contract extensions. SUMMARY: On November 2, 2006, the Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment determined there is substantial overriding public interest in extending certain National Forest System timber sale contracts for up to one year, subject to a maximum total contract length of 10 years. Pursuant to the November 2, 2006, finding, timber sale contracts awarded prior to January 1, 2006, are eligible for extension and deferral of periodic payment due dates for up to one year. Contracts that are in breach, have been or are currently eligible to be extended under market related contract term addition contract provisions, or salvage sale contracts that were sold with the objective of harvesting deteriorating timber are not eligible for extension pursuant to the November 2, 2006, finding. To receive an extension, purchasers must make a written request to the appropriate Contracting Officer. Purchasers also must agree to release the Forest Service from all claims and liability if a contract extended pursuant to the November 2, 2006, finding is suspended, modified or terminated in the future. The intended effect of the substantial overriding public interest finding and contract extensions is to minimize contract defaults, mill closures, and company bankruptcies. The Government benefits if defaulted timber sale contracts, mill closures, and bankruptcies can be avoided by granting extensions. Having numerous, economically viable, timber sale purchasers increases competition for National Forest System timber sales, results in higher prices paid for such timber, and allows the Forest Service to provide a continuous supply of timber to the public in accordance with Forest Service authorizing legislation. See Act of June 4, 1897 (Ch. 2, 30 Stat. 11 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 475) (Organic Administration Act). In addition, by extending contracts and avoiding defaults, closures and bankruptcies, the Government avoids the difficult, lengthy, expensive, and sometimes impossible process of collecting default damages. DATES: The determination was made on November 2, 2006, by the Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lathrop Smith, Forest Management Staff,
(202)205-0858 or Richard Fitzgerald, Forest Management Staff
(202)205-1753; 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Mailstop 1103, Washington, DC 20250-1103. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest Service sells timber and forest products from National Forest System lands to individuals or companies pursuant to the National Forest Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. 472a (NFMA). Each sale is formalized by execution of a contract between the purchaser and the Forest Service. The contract sets forth the explicit terms and provisions of the sale, including such matters as the estimated volume of timber to be removed, the period for removal, price to be paid to the Government, road construction and logging requirements, and environmental protection measures to be taken. The average contract period is approximately 2-3 years, although a few contracts have terms of 5 or more years. Rules at 36 CFR 223.52 (Market Related Contract Term Additions) permit contract extensions when the Chief of the Forest Service determines that adverse wood product market conditions have resulted in a drastic decline in wood product prices. Under market-related contract addition procedures, the Forest Service refers to the following three producer price indices maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Softwood Lumber #0811 and Hardwood Lumber #0812 in the Commodity Series, and Wood Chips #PCU32113321135 in the Industry Series. The softwood and hardwood lumber indices indicate a major downturn in those markets began about September 2004 and was still on a downward trend as of September 2006 with the softwood lumber index decreasing by about 31% and the hardwood lumber index decreasing by about 14% during this time. While most purchasers holding contracts with those indices have received or are eligible to receive market related contract term additions, an anomoly in the wood products markets and indices used in contracts in the lake States area and some other parts of the country has left many purchasers without this remedy. Section 472a(c) of NFMA provides that the Secretary of Agriculture shall not extend any timber sale contract period with an original term of two years or more, unless the purchaser has diligently performed in accordance with an approved plan of operations or the “substantial overriding public interest” justifies the extension. The authority to make this determination has been delegated to the Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment at 7 CFR 2.59. Accordingly, based on a current study, the Deputy Under Secretary has made a finding that there is a substantial overriding public interest in extending certain sales for up to one year. This determination does not apply to contracts that were previously extended or that are currently eligible to be extended under market related contract term addition provisions, to salvage sale contracts that were sold with the objective of harvesting deteriorating timber, or to timber sale contracts that are in breach. In addition to extending contracts pursuant to the Deputy Under Secretary's finding, periodic payments will be deferred for up to one year on the extended sales. To receive an extension and periodic payment deferral, purchasers must make a written request to the appropriate Contracting Officer. Purchasers must also agree to release the Forest Service from all claims and liability if a contract is suspended, modified or terminated, after the contract is extended pursuant to the Deputy Under Secretary's November 2, 2006 finding. The text of the finding, as signed by the Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment is set out at the end of this notice. Dated: November 6, 2006. Frederick Norbury, Associate Deputy Chief for NFS. Determination of Substantial Overriding Public Interest for Extending Certain Timber Sale Contracts The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a(c) provides that the Secretary of Agriculture shall not extend any timber sale contract period with an original term of two years or more unless he finds that the purchaser has diligently performed in accordance with an approved plan of operations or that the “substantial overriding public interest” justifies the extension. As a result of drastic reductions in forest product prices, there is a substantial overriding public interest in extending certain timber sale contracts. Background On December 7, 1990, the Forest Service published a final rule (55 FR 50643) establishing procedures in 36 CFR 223.52 for extending contract termination dates in response to adverse conditions in the timber markets. These procedures, known as Market Related Contract Term Additions, authorize extensions of timber sale contracts up to one additional year when qualifying market conditions are met. When the market related contract term addition procedures were established, experience indicated that the type and magnitude of lumber market declines that would trigger market related contract term additions generally coincide with low numbers of housing starts and are usually indicative of substantial economic dislocation in the wood products industry. Such economic distress broadly affects community stability, the ability of industry to supply construction lumber and other products for public use, and threatens maintaining plant capacity necessary to meet future demands for wood products from domestic sources. The Department has determined that a drastic reduction in wood product prices can result in a substantial overriding public interest sufficient to justify a contract term extension for existing contracts, as authorized by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a(c)) and existing regulations at 36 CFR 223.115(b). Following promulgation of the rule in 1990, the Forest Service began tracking four producer price indices provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as indicators of a drastic reduction in wood product prices. Those indices were the Southern Pine Dressed, Douglas-fir Dressed, Other Species Dressed, and Hardwood Lumber. Beginning in the first quarter of 1994 through the first quarter of 1996 government indices indicated a major downturn in the lumber markets throughout the country was occurring but only the Douglas-fir dressed lumber index, used in contracts in Washington and Oregon, dropped sufficiently to trigger market related contract term additions. Meanwhile, purchasers in other parts of the country were facing defaults, mill closures, and bankruptcies, but were not eligible for market related contract term additions. To avert these problems, the Chief of the Forest Service determined that it was in the substantial overriding public interest to extend for a period of up to one year certain contracts that had not received any market related contract term adjustments. The Forest Service also initiated a study of the market related contract term addition procedures and indices to determine why they did not appear to perform as expected. Findings in that study led the Forest Service to adopt four different producer price indices from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in May 1998; 1) Hardwood Lumber (SIC 24211), 2) Eastern Softwood Lumber (SIC 24213), 3) Western Softwood Lumber (SIC 24214), and 4) Wood Chips (SIC 24215). However, after December 2003, the Bureau of Labor Statistics discontinued publishing the Western Softwood Lumber index (SIC 24214), Eastern Softwood Lumber index (SIC 24213), and Hardwood Lumber index (SIC 24211). At the same time the Wood Chips index (SIC 24215) was renumbered as PCU32113321135. In January 2006, the Forest Service published a notice in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 3409) adopting the softwood lumber index 0811 and the hardwood lumber index 0812 to replace the 3 indices that were no longer supported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Forest Service continued to rely upon the Wood Chips index, now numbered PCU32113321135, to gauge certain market conditions. The three indices the Forest Service adopted to gauge most market conditions, however, are not able to address market conditions for all forest products *e.g.* biomass. Additionally, because the indices are national in scope, they may fail to address drastic declines in local markets. Recent Market Conditions The softwood lumber index #0811 began declining after September 2004 and with adjustments for inflation has declined 47.9 points or 31% as of September 2006. There have been five consecutive quarters beginning with the third quarter 2005 through the third quarter 2006 where the quarterly declines have been large enough to trigger market related contract term additions. This is a substantially larger decline than the one in the period between 1994-1996 when the index declined about 38 points or 21%. The 1994-1996 period also was the last time there were 5 consecutive qualifying quarters for market related contract term additions. The hardwood lumber index #0812 also began declining after September 2004, and with adjustments for inflation has declined 18.6 points or 14% as of September 2006. There were 3 consecutive quarters beginning with the third quarter 2005 through the first quarter 2006 where the quarterly declines have been large enough to trigger market related contract term additions equal to one calendar year plus one normal operating season. The index has continued to decline in the second and third quarters of 2006, but the decline has not been sufficient to trigger market related contract term additions. Consequently, if hardwood prices do not begin to recover soon, or if conditions for another market related contract term addition do not trigger, some hardwood purchasers may begin to face additional hardships as the market related contract term addition time they previously obtained expires. Between September 2004 and January 2006, the wood chips index remained fairly static but has been on a steady rise since then. The last time the wood chips index had a qualifying quarter was the third quarter of 1997. At this time, the market related contract term addition procedures on softwood lumber and hardwood lumber sales are generally functioning as expected. Additional contract time that has been made available, and granted to purchasers who requested it, has assisted purchasers by allowing more time to wait for markets to recover or to spread out harvesting of high priced sales. But as was the case in 1996, there are exceptions. For example, in the lake states area, a combination of factors has contributed to a more drastic decline in forest product prices than is occurring in other parts of the country and/or the producer price indices are not triggering market related contract term adjustments. The predominant forest products produced in this area are wood chips used in pulping for paper and oriented strand board (OSB), hardwood lumber, and a limited amount of softwood lumber. The pulp and OSB sales use the wood chips index which has not had a qualifying quarter for market related contract term additions since 1997. National Forest System timber sales in the lake states area often contain a diverse mix of forest products which attracts strong competition leading to relatively high bid rates. Problems began in 2005, when wood chip prices and demand declined sharply in response largely to an increase in cheap imported chips. Also, OSB is a building product with prices that tend to follow lumber market prices. While lumber market prices have declined significantly and the market related contract term addition policy has been triggered for contracts tied to the lumber indices, no such trigger has occurred for many of the sales in the lake states area. That is because most contracts in the lake states area are tied to the wood chips index, which has not declined, so those purchasers have not been eligible for market related contract term additions. Concurrently, lake states area pulp prices have been declining, but since national wood chip prices have been stable or increasing, those purchasers have not been eligible for market related contract term additions. Due to their location along the great lakes and Canadian border, competition from cheaper imported wood chips has also adversely affected purchasers in this area. As a result of these factors, purchasers in the lake states area are now faced with high bid prices on their existing contracts, low product prices, and no market related contract term addition to provide additional time for markets to recover or to mix the higher priced timber with lower priced timber for other sources. The market related contract term addition procedures do not appear to be functioning as expected here. In another example the sale of biomass material has been increasing in recent years with most of that material utilized for generating electricity in co-generation facilities. A reliable index for tracking this new product has not been found so most sales of biomass material also use the wood chips index. But, energy prices can differ substantially in different parts of the country and don't necessarily follow the wood chips index. Consequently, in areas where energy prices have drastically declined and purchasers are holding high price timber sale contracts, they are not currently eligible to receive a market related contract term addition because the wood chips index has not triggered. Determination of Substantial Overriding Public Interest The Government benefits if defaulted timber sale contracts, mill closures, and bankruptcies can be avoided by granting extensions. Having numerous, economically viable, timber sale purchasers increases competition for National Forest System timber sales, results in higher prices paid for such timber, and allows the Forest Service to provide a continuous supply of timber to the public in accordance with the Organic Administration Act. In addition, by extending contracts and avoiding defaults, closures and bankruptcies, the Government avoids the difficult, lengthy, expensive, and sometimes impossible, process of collecting default damages. Therefore, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 472a, and the authority delegated to me at 7 CFR 2.59, I have determined that it is in the substantial overriding public interest to extend for up to one year certain National Forest System timber sales that were awarded prior to January 1, 2006. This finding does not apply to contracts that have been or are currently eligible to be extended under market related contract term addition contract provisions, to salvage sale contracts that were sold with the objective of harvesting deteriorating timber, or to contracts that are in breach. Total contract length shall not exceed 10 years as a result of this extension. For those contracts extended pursuant to this finding, periodic payments due after the date of this determination will also be deferred for up to one year. To receive the extension and periodic payment deferral, purchasers must make written request and agree to release the Forest Service from all claims and liability if a contract extended pursuant to this finding is suspended, modified or terminated in the future. Dated: November 2, 2006. David P. Tenny Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment. [FR Doc. E6-19102 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service U.S. Forest Service Open Space Conservation Strategy and Implementation Plan AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Request for public input. SUMMARY: The Forest Service is inviting all interested members of the public to provide input into the development of the USDA Forest Service Open Space Conservation Strategy and Implementation Plan, which will help shape the agency's strategic role in a national effort to conserve open space. The Forest Service is interested in addressing the effects of the loss of open space on private forests; on the National Forests and Grasslands and surrounding landscape; and on forests in cities, suburbs, and towns. Input for the Strategy and Implementation Plan should focus on programs, research, partnerships, and/or policy recommendations that could be developed to conserve open space. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more background on the loss of open space and the Strategy and Implementation Plan. DATES: The Forest Service will review public input received no later than December 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Claire Harper, USDA Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry, Mail Stop Code 1123, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1123; via electronic mail to *openspace@fs.fed.us;* or via facsimile to
(202)205-1271. The agency cannot confirm receipt of comments. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection. The public may inspect comments during regular business hours at the office of the Cooperative Forestry Staff, 4th Floor SE., Yates Building, 201 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to
(202)205-1389 to facilitate entry into the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information about the Open Space Conservation Strategy and Implementation Plan and the loss of open space, contact Claire Harper, USDA Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry, by telephone at
(202)205-1389 or by electronic mail at *openspace@fs.fed.us.* For a summary of the Forest Service's current research, programs, and resources available to facilitate open space conservation, please review the Forest Service's publication entitled “Cooperating Across Boundaries: Partnerships to Conserve Open Space in Rural America.” Electronic copies of this publication are available at *http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/documents/cooperatingacrossboundaries.pdf,* and hardcopies are available by contacting Claire Harper at *openspace@fs.fed.us. * SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In 2003, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth identified the loss of open space as one of four great threats facing our nation's forests and grasslands. Loss of open space is an issue that affects the sustainability of both the National Forests and Grasslands and private forests. Open space—including public and private land, wilderness and working land—provides a multitude of public benefits and ecosystem services we all need and enjoy. Three interrelated trends of conversion, fragmentation, and parcelization are jeopardizing the long term health and function of forests, limiting management options, and reducing opportunities for public enjoyment and use. To address the loss of open space threat, the Forest Service is building a national strategy to identify how the agency plans to focus its efforts on the issue. This strategy will provide actions and policy recommendations to conserve open space, with an emphasis on partnerships and collaborative approaches. II. Open Space Conservation Strategy and Implementation Plan The Forest Service recognizes that it is not the only contributor to open space conservation; it is only one among many. The Forest Service also acknowledges that the agency's role in open space conservation is not to regulate development or land use, but is to provide expertise, resources, information, and programs. To help prioritize and focus the agency's efforts, the Forest Service plans to develop and refine an Open Space Conservation Strategy and Implementation Plan to address the loss of open space. Input for the Strategy and Implementation Plan should focus on programs, research, partnerships and/or policy recommendations that could be developed to conserve open space. Specifically, input regarding the following three questions is most useful: 1. How can the Forest Service protect land from conversion to other uses; 2. How can the Forest Service assist private landowners and communities in maintaining and managing their land as sustainable forests and grasslands; and 3. How can the Forest Service mitigate the impacts of existing and new developments. By receiving input from people with diverse interests and perspectives, the agency hopes to attain an array of viewpoints and ideas regarding the Open Space Conservation Strategy and Implementation Plan. Feedback from a range of interested individuals will assist the agency in developing a well-informed, focused, and effective strategy to address the loss of open space threat. Dated: November 2, 2006. Dale N. Bosworth, Chief, Forest Service. [FR Doc. E6-19060 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-815] Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation of Order In Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 13, 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances reviews with the intent to revoke, in part, the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from Germany, as described below. *See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews And Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany* , 71 FR 60473 (October 13, 2006) ( *Preliminary Results* ). In our *Preliminary Results* , the Department invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary determination to exclude certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Germany (“product in question”), as described below, from the scope of the order. The Department received no comments. Absent any comments, the Department concludes that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which this order pertains lack interest in the relief provided by this order with respect to the product in question because the domestic parties:
(1)Made affirmative statements of no interest in the continuation of the order with respect to the product in question; and
(2)did not comment on the *Preliminary Results* , in which the Department stated its intent to revoke the order with respect to that merchandise. Therefore, the Department concludes that it is appropriate to revoke this order, in part, with respect to unliquidated entries of the product in question that are not subject to the final results of an administrative review. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Lao or Richard Weible, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482- 7924 or
(202)482-1103, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published the antidumping duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Germany on August 19, 1993. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany* , 58 FR 44170 (August 19, 1993). *See also Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany* , 64 FR 51292 (September 22, 1999), and *Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada and Germany* , 71 FR 14498 (March 22, 2006). On August 17, 2006, ThyssenKrupp Steel North America, Inc. (“ThyssenKrupp”), a U.S. importer of the subject merchandise, requested a changed circumstances review to exclude from the antidumping duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Germany imports meeting the following description: electrolytically zinc coated flat steel products, with a coating mass between 35 and 72 grams per meter squared on each side; with a thickness range of 0.67 mm or more but not more than 2.95 mm and width 817 mm or more but not over 1830 mm; having the following chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.08, silicon not over 0.25, manganese not over 0.9, phosphorous not over 0.025, sulfur not over 0.012, chromium not over 0.1, titanium not over 0.005 and niobium not over 0.05; with a minimum yield strength of 310 Mpa and a minimum tensile strength of 390 Mpa; additionally coated on one or both sides with an organic coating containing not less than 30%% and not more than 60%% zinc and free of hexavalent chrome. See ThyssenKrupp letter to the Department dated August 17, 2006. 1 In addition, Mittal Steel USA (“Mittal Steel”), a major domestic corrosion-resistant steel producer, submitted a letter to the Department expressing a lack of interest in continuing to have the product in question subject to this antidumping duty order. 2 *See* Mittal Steel letter to the Department dated August 18, 2006. 1 DaimlerChrylser Corporation (“DaimlerChrysler”), a domestic customer of corrosion-resistant steel, also submitted letters to the Department pre-dating ThyssenKrupp's request, indicating that it had contacted United States Steel Corporation, Mittal Steel, AK Steel, and Nucor Corporation, (domestic interested parties) and determined they are not interested in maintaining the antidumping duty order with respect to the product in question. *See* Letters to the Department from DaimlerChrysler dated June 22, 2006, and July 18, 2006, respectively. 2 On September 26, 2006, Mittal Steel submitted a letter to the Department clarifying minor discrepancies in its August 18, 2006, submission regarding the product specifications of the product in question it is no longer interested in having covered by the antidumping duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Germany. In response to the request made by the “interested party” within the meaning of section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), ThyssenKrupp, and the expressed lack of interest from Mittal Steel, the Department published a notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Germany on September 12, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany* , 71 FR 53653 (September 12, 2006) ( *Initiation Notice* ). On September 27, 2006, ThyssenKrupp stated that the effective date for the exclusion should be August 1, 2005. In the *Initiation Notice* , the Department indicated that interested parties could submit comments for consideration in the Department's preliminary results no later than 15 days after publication of the initiation of this review. The Department did not receive comments from interested parties. Absent any comments, the Department preliminarily concluded that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which these orders pertain lacked interest in the relief provided by these orders with respect to the product in question. *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR 60473 (October 13, 2006). The Department invited interested parties to comment on its preliminary determination to revoke the order, in part. The Department did not receive comments from any interested parties. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Germany. This scope includes flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this order are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”) - for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%%-60%%-20%% ratio. Also excluded from this order are deep-drawing carbon steel strip, roll-clad on both sides with aluminum
(AlSi)foils in accordance with St3 LG as to EN 10139/10140. The merchandise's chemical composition encompasses a corrosion-resistant material of U St 23 (continuous casting) in which carbon is less than 0.08; manganese is less than 0.30; phosphorous is less than 0.20; sulfur is less than 0.015; aluminum is less than 0.01; and the cladding material is a minimum of 99%% aluminum with silicon/copper/iron of less than 1%%. The products are in strips with thicknesses of 0.07mm to 4.0mm (inclusive) and widths of 5mm to 800mm (inclusive). The thickness ratio of aluminum on either side of steel may range from 3%%/94%%/3%% to 10%%/80%%/10%%. Also excluded from this order is corrosion-resistant steel meeting the following description: certain flat-rolled wear plate ranging from 30 inches to 50 inches in width, from 45 inches to 110 inches in length and from 0.187 inch to 0.875 inch in total thickness, having a layer on one side composed principally of a combination of boron carbides, chromium carbides, nickel carbides, silicon carbides, manganese carbides, niobium carbides, iron carbides, tungsten carbides, vanadium carbides, titanium carbides and/or molybdenum carbides fused to a non-alloy flat-rolled steel substrate. The carbides are in the form of M x C x where “M” stands for the metal and “x” for the atomic ratio. An example of a common carbide would be (Cr 7 C 3 ). The carbide layer is a visually distinct layer ranging in thickness from 0.062 inch to 0.312 inch with hardness at the surface of the carbide layer in excess of 55 HRC. As a result of this current changed circumstances review, also excluded from the scope of this order is certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel from Germany, meeting the following description: electrolytically zinc coated flat steel products, with a coating mass between 35 and 72 grams per meter squared on each side; with a thickness range of 0.67 mm or more but not more than 2.95 mm and width 817 mm or more but not over 1830 mm; having the following chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.08, silicon not over 0.25, manganese not over 0.9, phosphorous not over 0.025, sulfur not over 0.012, chromium not over 0.1, titanium not over 0.005 and niobium not over 0.05; with a minimum yield strength of 310 Mpa and a minimum tensile strength of 390 Mpa; additionally coated on one or both sides with an organic coating containing not less than 30 percent and not more than 60 percent zinc and free of hexavalent chrome. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Final Result of Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, In Part Pursuant to sections 751(d)(1) and 782(h)(2) of the Act, the Department may revoke an antidumping duty order based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act ( *i.e.* , a changed circumstances review). Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. In the instant review, based on the information provided by ThyssenKrupp and Mittal Steel, and the lack of comments from domestic interested parties, the Department preliminarily found that the continued relief provided by the order with respect to the product in question from Germany is no longer of interest to the domestic industry. We did not receive any comments on our *Preliminary Results* . Therefore, the Department is revoking the order on corrosion-resistant steel from Germany with regard to the products that meet the specifications detailed above. We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties, and to refund any estimated antidumping duties collected on all unliquidated entries of the product in question that are not covered by the final results of an administrative review or automatic liquidation. The most recent period for which the Department has completed an administrative review, or ordered automatic liquidation, is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. Any prior entries are subject to either the final results of review or automatic liquidation. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, shipments of corrosion-resistant steel meeting the specifications of the product in question entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 1, 2005. We will also instruct CBP to pay interest on such refunds in accordance with section 778 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(4). This changed circumstance review, partial revocation of antidumping duty order, and notice are in accordance with sections 751(b) and (d), 782(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and section 351.216(e) and 351.222(g)(3)(vii) of the Department's regulations. Dated: November 6, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19109 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or Judy Lao, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-0405 and 202-482-7924, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 31, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the initiation of its new shipper antidumping duty reviews of honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for four companies, covering the period of December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews* , 71 FR 5051 (January 31, 2006). On February 1, 2006, the Department published the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006). On July 3, 2006, the Department extended the preliminary results for the new shipper review by 120 days. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 37904 (July 3, 2006). On July 12, 2006, Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd., one of the new shipper companies in this proceeding, withdrew its request for a new shipper review. The Department rescinded the review for Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd. on July 31, 2006. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 43110 (July 31, 2006). On August 16, 2006, the Department extended the preliminary results for the administrative review by 80 days. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 47170 (August 16, 2006). The preliminary results for the new shipper reviews and the administrative review are currently due no later than November 21, 2006. On October 25, 2006, the Department received a letter from counsel to Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping Co., Ltd., Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd, and Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd. agreeing to waive the new shipper time limits in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.214(j)(3). Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.214(j)(3), on October 25, 2006, the Department acknowledged respondents' waiver of the new shipper review time limits and aligned the new shipper reviews with the administrative review. *See* Department's Memo to All Interested Parties dated October 25, 2006, in which the Department acknowledged that all three remaining new shipper companies waived the new shipper time limits, and the Department aligned the current new shipper reviews with the current administrative review. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Review Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. *See* section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Completion of the preliminary results for the administrative review within the 245-day period is not practicable. The administrative review and new shipper review cover six companies involving complex issues regarding surrogate values. The Department is also required to gather and analyze a significant amount of information pertaining to each company's sales and production processes. Additionally, the Department only recently received information on appropriate surrogate values from both respondents and petitioners. *See* Submission from Petitioners re: Surrogate Values for the Factors of Production in the 8th New Shipper Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order for Honey from the PRC, dated September 22, 2006; *see also* Submission from Respondents regarding Surrogate Values, dated September 20, 2006; *see also* Rebuttal Comments from Petitioners and Respondents on Proposed Surrogate Value Data, dated October 10, 2006, and October 12, 2006, respectively. The Department requires further time to review the data contained in these submissions for consideration in the preliminary results of these new shipper and administrative reviews. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review by 30 days, until December 21, 2006. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: November 3, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19113 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-507-601] Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 7, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results in the countervailing duty
(CVD)administrative review of certain in-shell roasted pistachios from Iran. The Department has now completed this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Based on information received since the preliminary results and our analysis of the comments received, the Department has not revised the net subsidy rate for Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company, Inc., trading as Nima Trading Company (Nima), the respondent company in this proceeding. The final net subsidy rate for the reviewed company is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2786. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 7, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results in the CVD review of certain in-shell roasted pistachios from Iran. *See Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 38622 (July 7, 2006) ( *Preliminary Results* ). We invited interested parties to comment on these results. Since the preliminary results, we received case briefs from petitioner 1 and from a domestic interested party 2 on August 7, 2006. Neither Nima nor the Government of Iran
(GOI)submitted a case or rebuttal brief. 1 The California Pistachio Commission
(CPC)and its members. 2 Cal Pure Pistachios, Inc. (Cal Pure). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this administrative review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, this administrative review covers Nima for the period of review
(POR)January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all roasted in-shell pistachio nuts, whether roasted in Iran or elsewhere, from which the hull has been removed, leaving the inner hard shells and the edible meat, as currently classifiable in the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)* under item number 0802.50.20.00. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received For a discussion of the programs and the issues raised in the briefs by parties to this review, *see* the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, concerning the “Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran” (Decision Memorandum) dated November 6, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A listing of the issues that parties raised and to which we have responded, included in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Use of Facts Available The Department has concluded that the GOI and Nima did not act to the best of their abilities in providing responses to the Department, in accordance with sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Act. Specifically, neither the GOI nor Nima submitted questionnaire responses to the Department. By failing to respond to our questionnaire, Nima and the GOI have failed to provide information regarding subsidy programs in Iran, and regarding Nima's sales, in the manner explicitly requested by the Department. Therefore, we must resort to the facts otherwise available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, in selecting from among the facts available, the Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act because, despite the Department's efforts, Nima and the GOI did not respond to our questionnaire and requests for information. In the instant case, the Department is relying on information from *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Roasted In-Shell Pistachios from Iran* , 51 FR 35679 (October 7, 1986) ( *Roasted Pistachios* ); *Certain In-Shell Pistachios and Certain Roasted In-Shell Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of New Shipper Countervailing Duty Reviews* , 68 FR 4997 (January 31, 2003) ( *Pistachios New Shipper Reviews* ); and *Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 27682 (May 12, 2006) ( *2003 Roasted Pistachios* ). If the Department relies on secondary information ( *e.g.* , data from a petition) as facts available, section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, “to the extent practicable,” corroborate such information using independent sources reasonably at its disposal. 3 The SAA further provides that to corroborate secondary information means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* also 19 CFR 351.308(d) (describing the corroboration of secondary information). 3 The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA clarifies that information from the petition is “secondary information.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action, URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong.
(SAA)at 870. Thus, in those instances in which it determines to apply adverse facts available, the Department, in order to satisfy itself that such information has probative value, will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. With regard to the reliability aspect of corroboration, unlike other types of information, such as publicly available data on the national inflation rate of a given country or national average interest rates, there typically are no independent sources for data on company-specific benefits resulting from countervailable subsidy programs. The only source for such information normally is administrative determinations. In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained which contradicts the reliability of the evidence relied upon in previous segments of this proceeding. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render benefit data not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the information is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will not use it. *See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained which contradicts the relevance of the benefit data relied upon in previous segments of this proceeding. Thus, in the instant case, the Department finds that the information used has been corroborated to the extent practicable. For further discussion, *see* the “Use of Facts Available” section of the Decision Memorandum. Final Results of Review In accordance with sections 777A(e)(1) and 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an *ad valorem* subsidy rate for Nima, the only producer/exporter subject to this review, for the POR, calendar year 2004. Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company, Inc., trading as Nima Trading Company
(Nima)66.50 percent *ad valorem* As Nima is the exporter but not the producer of subject merchandise, the Department's final results of review apply only to subject merchandise exported by Nima and produced by any company which produces the subject merchandise. *See* 19 CFR 351.107(b) (providing that the Department may establish a combination rate for each combination of exporter and its supplying producer). Therefore, we will issue the following cash deposit requirements, within 15 days of publication of the final results of the instant review, for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication:
(1)for merchandise exported by Nima, the cash deposit rate will be 66.50 percent *ad valorem* , *i.e.* , the rate calculated in the final results of the instant administrative review;
(2)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original CVD investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; and
(3)if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 317.89 percent *ad valorem* , the “All Others” rate from the final determination in the original investigation. We will also issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(3) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). Dated: November 6, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I - Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Methodology and Background Information Use of Facts Available> II. Analysis of Programs Programs Determined to Be Countervailable 1. Provision of Fertilizer and Machinery 2. Provision of Credit 3. Tax Exemptions 4. Provision of Water and Irrigation Equipment 5. Technical Support 6. Duty Refunds on Imported Raw or Intermediate Materials Used in the Production of Export Goods 7. Program to Improve Quality of Exports of Dried Fruit 8. Iranian Export Guarantee Fund 9. GOI Grants and Loans to Pistachio Farmers 10. Crop Insurance for Pistachios III. Total Ad Valorem Rate IV. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Adverse Facts Available Rate Comment 2: Additional Subsidy Programs [FR Doc. E6-19108 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Notice of Scope Rulings AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2006. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings completed between July 1, 2006, and September 30, 2006. In conjunction with this list, the Department is also publishing a list of requests for scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations pending as of September 30, 2006. We intend to publish future lists after the close of the next calendar quarter. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Gibbons, 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)482-0498. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the **Federal Register** a list of scope rulings on a quarterly basis. *See* 19 CFR 351.225(o). Our most recent “Notice of Scope Rulings” was published on July 28, 2006. *See* 71 FR 42807. The instant notice covers all scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations completed by Import Administration between July 1, 2006, and September 30, 2006, inclusive. It also lists any scope or anticircumvention inquiries pending as of September 30, 2006, as well as scope rulings inadvertently omitted from prior published lists. As described below, subsequent lists will follow after the close of each calendar quarter. Scope Rulings Completed Between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006: People's Republic of China A-570-502: Iron Construction Castings from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Unisource International, Inc.; its Polycast Series 700 Frame and Grate are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; August 8, 2006. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Atico International, Inc.; its “Christmas Stocking Tealight,” “Halloween Novelty Ghost,” “Halloween Novelty JOL,” and “Halloween Novelty Frankenstein” candles are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; its “Halloween Novelty Pumpkin,” “Halloween Bloody Skull,” “Halloween Novelty Tombstone,” “Halloween Witch Shoe,” and “Santas Boot” candles are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; July 6, 2006. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Freight Expediters; its “Small Artichoke” and “Large Artichoke,” “Small Pinecone” and “Large Pinecone,” “Cabbage” and “Radishes” candles are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; July 21, 2006. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Kohl's Department Stores; its “Santa Head” candle, style no. L50050, is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; August 28, 2006. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Kohl's Department Stores; its “Berry Ball Candle,” style no. X5478, is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; September 5, 2006. A-570-803: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Central Purchasing Co.; its gooseneck, claw and wrecking bars are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; July 27, 2006. A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Dorel Asia SrL; its infant
(baby)changing tables with drawers or doors are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; its infant
(baby)changing tables with no drawers or doors and with the flat top surface surrounded by a permanent guard rail, and its toddler beds are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; August 11, 2006. A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Drexel Heritage; its bathroom vanity is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; September 5, 2006. Anticircumvention Determinations Completed Between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006: People's Republic of China A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: National Candles Association; candles composed of petroleum wax and over fifty percent or more palm and/or other vegetable oil-based waxes are later-developed merchandise circumventing the antidumping duty order; September 29, 2006. Scope Inquiries Terminated Between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006: People's Republic of China A-570-832: Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China Requestor: U.S. Magnesium LLC; whether alloy magnesium produced in France using pure magnesium from the PRC is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; terminated August 31, 2006. A-570-896: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China Requestor: U.S. Magnesium LLC; whether alloy magnesium produced in France using pure magnesium from the PRC is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; terminated August 31, 2006. Scope Inquiries Pending as of September 30, 2006: Italy A-475-703: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy Requestor: Petitioner, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company (DuPont); whether imports of Polymist® feedstock produced by the respondent, Solvay Solexis, Inc. and Solvay Solexis S.p.A (collectively, Solvay) are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested August 18, 2006; initiated October 2, 2006. Japan A-588-804: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan Requestor: Petitioner, Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. (Koyo); whether certain x-ray spindle units from Japan are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested July 9, 2006; initiated July 24, 2006. People's Republic of China A-570-502: Iron Construction Castings from the People's Republic of China Requestor: A.Y. McDonald Manufacturing Company; whether its cast iron bases and upper bodies for meter boxes are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested July 7, 2006. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Avon Products, Inc.; whether its “Cupcake Candle,” product profile number 1041846, is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested August 16, 2006. A-570-832: Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China Requestor: U.S. Magnesium LLC; whether pure magnesium from the PRC processed in France into pure magnesium is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; preliminary ruling August 31, 2006. A-570-832: Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China Requestor: U.S. Magnesium LLC; whether alloy magnesium processed in Canada from pure magnesium ingots from the PRC is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; preliminary ruling August 31, 2006. A-570-846: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Federal-Mogul Corporation; whether its brake rotors that include an Original Equipment Manufacturer (“OEM”) logo in the casting and/or are certified by an OEM are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested August 14, 2006. A-570-864: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People's Republic of China Requestor: ESM Group Inc.; whether pure magnesium ingots from the United States, atomized in the PRC, and returned to the United States are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested April 11, 2006. A-570-878: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China Requestor: PMC Specialties Group, Inc.; whether acid (insoluble) saccharin from the PRC converted in Israel into sodium saccharin, calcium saccharin or any other form of saccharin covered by the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC remains within the scope of the antidumping duty order; preliminary ruling April 10, 2006. A-570-882: Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the People's Republic of China Requestor: 3M Company; whether certain semi-friable and heat-treated, specialty aluminum oxides are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested September 19, 2006. A-570-886: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Consolidated Packaging LLP; whether 23 plastic bags it imports are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested April 19, 2006; initiated June 5, 2006. A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China Requestor: American Signature, Inc.; whether its mirrored chest, leather bed, and microfiber bed are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested June 2, 2006. A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Toys 'R Us, Inc.; whether its toy boxes are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested September 26, 2006. A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Tuohy Furniture Corporation; whether its seventeen products that include storage towers ( *i.e.* , bathroom, housekeeping, and closet), headboards, wainscoting, wood panels, a TV stand, bedside tables, and coffee tables, are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested April 5, 2006. A-570-896: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China Requestor: U.S. Magnesium LLC; whether alloy magnesium processed in Canada from pure magnesium ingots from the PRC is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; preliminary ruling August 31, 2006. Russia A-821-819: Magnesium Metal from Russia Requestor: US Magnesium LLC; whether magnesium metal further processed in Canada and France is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested July 19, 2005; initiated September 2, 2005. Anticircumvention Inquiries Terminated Between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006: A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: National Candles Association; whether candles composed of petroleum wax and over fifty percent or more palm and/or other vegetable oil-based waxes and have been subject to minor alterations are circumventing the antidumping duty order; terminated September 29, 2006. Anticircumvention Rulings Pending as of September 30, 2006: People's Republic of China A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: National Candle Association; whether candles assembled in the United States from molded or carved articles of wax (wax forms) from the PRC are circumventing the antidumping duty order; requested December 14, 2005; initiated May 11, 2006. A-570-868: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Meco Corporation; whether the common leg table (a folding metal table affixed with cross bars that enable the legs to fold in pairs) produced in the PRC is a minor alteration that is circumventing the antidumping duty order; initiated June 1, 2006. A-570-894: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Seaman Paper Company; whether imports of tissue paper from Vietnam made out of jumbo rolls of tissue paper from the PRC are circumventing the antidumping duty order; initiated September 5, 2006. Scope Rulings Inadvertently Omitted from Prior Published Lists: None. Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of pending scope and anticircumvention inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 1870, Washington, DC 20230. This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o). Dated: November 6, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19111 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 110606E] Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) and its Administrative Committee will hold meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held on December 5-6, 2006. The Council will convene on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and the Administrative Committee will meet from 5:15 p.m. to 6 p.m., on that same day. The Council will reconvene on Wednesday, December 6, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., approximately. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at Marriott Frenchman's Reef Hotel, #5 Estate Bakkeroe, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1920, telephone:
(787)766-5926. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will hold its 123rd regular public meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda: December 5, 2006, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Call to Order Adoption of Agenda Consideration of 122nd Council Meeting Verbatim Transcription Executive Director's Report New Data and Analysis U.S.V.I. Fishery - David Olsen Update Caribbean Spiny Lobster Minimum Size Highly Migratory Species - Jackie Wilson HMS Subcommittee Effective Outreach and Education Program St. Croix EEZ Working Group Meeting Report - Virdin Brown December 5, 2006, 5:15 p.m. - 6 p.m. Administrative Committee Meeting AP/SSC/HAP Membership Budget 2006, 2007 Coral Reef Research - Five year plan COLA Reduction Contract between Caribbean Fishery Management Council
(CFMC)and Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science University of Miami Other Business December 6, 2006, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Workshop on Derelict Fishing Gear in the Caribbean - Cynthia K. Van Holle Enforcement Reports Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands NOAA U.S. Coast Guard Administrative Committee Recommendations (December 5, 2006 meeting) Meetings Attended by Council Members and Staff Other Business Next Council Meeting The meetings are open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-2577; telephone:
(787)766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: November 7, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-19068 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, (National Advisory Committee); Notice of Meeting Changes AGENCY: National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Department of Education. SUMMARY: This notice advises interested parties of changes concerning the December 2006 meeting of the National Advisory Committee and amends information provided in the original meeting notice published in the July 26, 2006 **Federal Register** (71 FR 42366). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Francesca Paris-Albertson, the Executive Director of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, U.S. Department of Education, room 7110, MS 7592, 1990 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20006, telephone:
(202)219-7009, fax:
(202)219-7008, e-mail: *Francesca.Paris-Albertson@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The changes to the agenda for the December 2006 meeting of the National Advisory Committee, to be held at the Madison, 1177 Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005:
(1)There will be a two-hour discussion among the NACIQI members regarding the report from the Secretary's Commission on the Future of Higher Education. The discussion is scheduled for Monday, December 4, 2006 from 8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.
(2)Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Schools, which was originally scheduled for review during the National Advisory Committee's December 2006 meeting, withdrew their request for an expansion of scope. Their request for an expansion of scope included the accreditation and preaccreditation of not-for-profit postsecondary non-degree-granting institutions in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. How May I Obtain Electronic Access to This Document? You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2. James F. Manning, Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E6-18652 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, and the Department of Energy Regarding Implementation of Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” AGENCIES: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of availability of Memorandum of Understanding. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE)and the Department of the Interior (DOI), United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS)have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), effective August 3, 2006. The purpose of the MOU is to address how both Parties may cooperatively handle migratory bird protection and conservation in accordance with the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA)and Executive Order
(EO)13186. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Stirling, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW. (Room 3G-092), Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-2417. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MOU addresses how DOE and DOI may cooperatively handle migratory bird protection and conservation and ensure that DOE operations are consistent with the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA)and Executive Order
(EO)13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” EO 13186 specifically directs Federal agencies whose actions have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative impact on migratory bird populations, to incorporate migratory bird conservation measures into their activities. The MOU serves to strengthen migratory bird protection and conservation through enhanced collaboration between DOE and FWS, and fulfills DOE's obligation under EO 13186. The MOU identifies specific areas in which cooperation between DOE and FWS will substantially contribute to the conservation and management of migratory birds and their habitats. The MOU establishes protocols to provide the necessary guidance for DOE to incorporate migratory bird protection and conservation more fully into it's programs in accordance with EO requirements. The complete text of this MOU is available for view on the following Department of Energy Web site: *http://www.eh.doe.gov/oepa/data.* Issued at Washington, DC, October 30, 2006. Andrew C. Lawrence, Director, Office of Nuclear Safety and Environment, Office of Health, Safety and Security, U.S. Department of Energy. [FR Doc. 06-9185 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 16
Traces to 16 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
- Market-related contract term additions.§ 223.52
- Contract extensions.§ 223.115
- Revocation of orders; termination of suspended investigations.§ 351.222
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Determinations on the basis of the facts available.§ 351.308
- Review procedures.§ 351.221
- Cash deposit rates; producer/exporter combination rates.§ 351.107
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- Scope rulings.§ 351.225
4 references not yet in our index
- 7 USC 7701-7772
- 7 CFR 360
- 7 CFR 319
- 7 CFR 2.59
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of electronic public discussion
Cite7 USC 7701-7772
Cite7 CFR 360
Cite7 CFR 319
Cites 20 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources