Notices. Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement

15,339 words·~70 min read·/register/2006/12/29/06-9928

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Oil and Gas Leasing EIS on Lands Administered by the Dixie National Forest AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA and Bureau of Land Management, USDI. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Forest Supervisor of the Dixie National Forest gives notice of the intent to prepare an environmental impact statement

(EIS)to document the analysis and disclose the environmental and human effects of oil and gas leasing on lands administered by the Dixie National Forest. The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 requires the Forest Service to evaluate National Forest System lands for potential oil and gas leasing. The EIS would analyze all lands with a federally-owned mineral estate within the Dixie National Forest. As the agency responsible for lease issuance and administration, the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)will participate as a cooperating agency. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received within 30 days from date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** to be most useful. The draft environmental impact statement is expected winter 2007/2008, and the final environmental impact statement is expected summer 2008. ADDRESSES: Susan Baughman, Oil and Gas Leasing Project Manager, Dixie National Forest, 1789 N. Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, Utah 84720; phone:

(435)865-3703; fax:

(435)865-3791; e-mail: *dixie_oil_gas_eis_comments@fs.fed.us* . E-mailed comments must be submitted in MS Word (*.doc) or rich text format (*.rtf) and should include the project name in the subject line. Written comments may also be submitted at the above address during regular business hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday-Friday. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Baughman, Oil and Gas Leasing Project Manager, Dixie National Forest, 1789 N. Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, Utah 84720; *phone:*

(435)865-3703. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EIS analysis area includes the entire Dixie National Forest (approximately 1,710,677 acres), with the exception of designated wilderness areas (approximately 82,840 acres) for a total study area of approximately 1,627,837 acres. The Department of Interior, BLM, acts as the onshore leasing agent for the Federal government. The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 states that the BLM cannot lease over the objection of the Forest Service and authorizes the Forest Service to regulate all surface disturbing activities conducted pursuant to a lease. Therefore, the Forest Service has established an incremental decision-making framework for the consideration of oil and gas leasing activities on National Forest System lands. In general, the various steps that are undertaken are:

(1)Forest Service leasing analysis;

(2)Forest Service notification to BLM of lands administratively available for leasing;

(3)Forest Service review and verification of BLM leasing proposals;

(4)BLM assessment of Forest Service conditions of surface occupancy;

(5)BLM offers lease;

(6)BLM issues lease;

(7)Forest Service review and approval of lessee's surface use plan of operations;

(8)BLM review and approval of lessee's application for permit to drill; and

(9)ensure final reclamation. Based upon the Forest Service leasing analysis (step 1 from above), the Forest Service decides whether or not lands will be available for leasing and decides under what conditions (stipulations) the leases will be issued. This EIS will fulfill this step. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of the proposed action is to complete a forest-wide leasing analysis, to comply with the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987. This requires the Forest Service to analyze lands under its jurisdiction that are legally available for leasing to meet the federal regulatory requirements of 36 CFR 228.102 and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The need is to be responsive to requests for oil and gas leasing on the Dixie National Forest. Since the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 was signed into law, no new oil and gas leases have been authorized on the Dixie National Forest. However the oil and gas industry continued to express interest in leasing and interest has recently escalated due to the increased demand for oil and gas, high prices, and discoveries of oil and gas reserves in other areas with similar geologic conditions. The BLM Utah State Office has received numerous written expressions of interest for leasing portions of the Dixie National Forest over the past several years. Proposed Action The Forest Supervisor of the Dixie National Forest and Utah State Director, Bureau of Land Management propose to conduct the analysis and decide which lands to make available for oil and gas leasing. The analysis area includes lands administered by the Dixie National Forest. As part of the analysis, the Forest Service will identify areas that would be available for leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard oil and gas lease form, or subject to constraints that would require the use of lease stipulations such as those prohibiting surface occupancy. The analysis will also:

(1)Identify alternatives to the proposed action, including that of not allowing leasing (no action),

(2)project the type/amount of post-leasing activity that is reasonably foreseeable,

(3)analyze the reasonably foreseeable impacts of projected post-leasing activity [36 CFR 228.102(c)], and

(4)be used to develop an amendment to the Forest Plan if necessary. Possible Alternatives All alternatives studied in detail must fall within the scope of the purpose and need for action and will generally tier to and comply with the Dixie Forest Plan. Law requires evaluation of a “no-action alternative.” Under the No Action/No Lease alternative, no oil and gas leasing would occur. Alternatives to be evaluated would range from the No Action/No Lease alternative (most restrictive) to the Standard Lease Terms alternative (least restrictive) where all lands legally open to leasing would be made administratively available for leasing with only the standard BLM terms and conditions contained on BLM Lease Form 3100-11. Other alternatives which fall somewhere between the No Action/No Leasing alternative and Lease with Standard Terms alternative would also be developed and evaluated, which would involve making some lands unavailable for leasing and other lands available for leasing with lease stipulations for the protection of other resources and interests. The Forest is expecting that the public input will generate either thematic concerns or area-specific issues that may be addressed by modifying the proposed action to create a new alternative or alternatives. Lead and Cooperating Agencies The Forest Service is the lead agency. The Bureau of Land Management and State of Utah will participate as cooperating agencies. Responsible Officials Kevin Schulkoski, Acting Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest, 1789 N. Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, Utah, 84720. Nature of Decision To Be Made The Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest, will decide which lands with federal mineral ownership administered by the Dixie National Forest will be administratively available for oil and gas leasing, along with associated conditions or constraints for the protection of non-mineral interests [36 CFR 228.102(d)]. The Forest Supervisor will also authorize the BLM to offer specific lands for lease, subject to the Forest Service ensuring that the required stipulations are attached to the leases [36 CFR 228.102(e)]. The Forest Service proposes to amend the Forest Plan to incorporate the leasing decision and other site-specific changes as indicated in the analysis. The BLM is responsible for issuing and administration of oil and gas leases under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and Federal Regulations in 43 CFR 3101.7. The BLM Utah State Director must decide whether or not to offer for lease specific lands authorized for leasing by the Dixie National Forest and with what stipulations. Scoping Process The first formal opportunity to comment on the Dixie National Forest Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis Project is during the scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7), which begins with the issuance of this Notice of Intent. *Mail comments to:* Susan Baughman, Oil and Gas Leasing Project Manager, Dixie National Forest, 1789 N. Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, Utah 84720. The Forest Service requests comments on the nature and scope of the environmental, social, and economic issues, and possible alternatives related to oil and gas leasing on lands administered by the Dixie National Forest. A series of public opportunities are scheduled to describe the proposal and to provide an opportunity for public input. Three scoping meetings are planned: *January 16:* 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Best Western Abbey Inn, 1129 South Bluff, St. George, Utah. *January 17:* 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Cannonville Visitor Center, 10 Center Street, Cannonville, Utah. *January 18:* 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Heritage Center, 105 North 100 East, Cedar City, Utah. Written comments will be accepted at these meetings. The Forest Service will work with tribal governments to address issues that would significantly or uniquely affect them. Preliminary Issues Issues that may be analyzed in all alternatives include: the socioeconomic effects of oil and gas leasing and subsequent activities; effects on terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna, including threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, and management indicator species; effects on both developed and dispersed recreation; effects on air resources; effects on water resources, including wetlands, floodplains, riparian areas, culinary and municipal water systems, and groundwater; effects on visual resources; effects of leasing stipulations and mitigation measures on oil and gas exploration and development activity; effects on soils and geologic hazards; effects on cultural and traditional heritage resources; effects on transportation; effects on upland vegetation; effects on riparian vegetation; effects on inventoried roadless areas; effects on other mineral resource extraction activities; and effects on noxious weeds and invasive species. Specific issues will be developed through review of public comments and internal review. Comment Requested This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The Forest has also received substantial input at public meetings held for the Forest Plan revision, including issues relative to mineral exploration and development. Through these efforts the Forest has an understanding of the broad range of perspectives on the resource issues and social values attributed to resource activities on the Dixie National Forest. Consequently site-specific comments or concerns are the most important types of information needed for this EIS. Because the Oil and Gas Leasing EIS is a stand-alone document, only public comment letters which address relevant issues and concerns will be considered and formally addressed in an appendix in the final environmental impact statement. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement is expected to be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC,* 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc* . v. *Harris* , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the providing comments during the scoping comment period and during the comment period following the draft EIS so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing their points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21). Dated: December 19, 2006. Kevin R. Schulkoski, Acting Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E6-22038 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-357-812 Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent Not to Revoke in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping order on honey from Argentina. The review covers four firms, one of which was selected as a mandatory respondent (see “Background” section of this notice for further explanation). The period of review

(POR)is December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. We preliminarily determine that sales of honey from Argentina have not been made below the normal value

(NV)for the respondent firm, Seylinco S.A. (Seylinco). In addition, we will preliminarily apply the *de minimis* rate calculated for Seylinco as the review-specific rate for those companies subject to this review but not selected as respondents ( *i.e.* , Mielar S.A./Compania Apicola Argentina S.A. (Mielar/CAA) and El Mana S.A.). For more detail, *see* the “Background” section below; *see also* “Preliminary Results of Review,” below. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price

(EP)and NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)a statement of the issues,

(2)a brief summary of the argument, and

(3)a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 29, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke, Deborah Scott, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-5604,

(202)482-2657, or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 10, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Honey from Argentina* , 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). On December 1, 2005, the Department published its opportunity to request a review. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 72109 (December 1, 2005). On December 30, 2005, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners) requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina for the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. Petitioners requested that the Department review entries of subject merchandise made by 42 Argentine producers/exporters. In addition, the Department received individual requests for review from four Argentine exporters, all of which were named in the petitioners' request for review. On January 6, 2006, petitioners withdrew their request for review with respect to 23 of the companies listed in their original request. On February 1, 2006, the Department initiated a review of the 19 remaining companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006). On February 2, 2006, the Department issued quantity and value questionnaires to each of the 19 companies covered by the review. These questionnaires requested export and production volume data for the POR. Sixteen companies submitted a response. On March 10, 2006, petitioners timely withdrew their request for review of 12 of the 19 companies. Accordingly, the Department published a notice of partial rescission in response to petitioners' withdrawal of their request for review of these 12 companies. See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 18066 (April 10, 2006). On April 4, 2006, the Department determined that because it was not feasible to examine all seven of the remaining producers/exporters of subject merchandise, the most appropriate methodology for purposes of this review was to select the four largest producers/exporters by export volume as respondents: Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA), Nexco S.A. (Nexco), HoneyMax S.A. (HoneyMax), and Seylinco. The Department stated it would apply a review-specific average margin to those companies not selected, *i.e.* , Mielar/CAA and El Mana S.A. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration from David Cordell, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 7 entitled “Selection of Respondents,” dated April 4, 2006. On August 4, 2006, petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of Nexco. On August 21, 2006, petitioners and HoneyMax submitted letters withdrawing their requests for an administrative review of HoneyMax. Accordingly, on September 6, 2006, the Department published a notice of partial rescission of review with regard to Nexco and HoneyMax. *See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 52526 (September 6, 2006). On September 11, 2006, petitioners and ACA submitted letters withdrawing their requests for an administrative review of ACA. Thus, on October 17, 2006, the Department published a notice of partial rescission of review with regard to ACA. *See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 61018 (October 17, 2006). With respect to the single remaining respondent, Seylinco, the chronology of this review is as follows. On April 5, 2006, the Department issued sections A, B, and C of the antidumping questionnaire to Seylinco. We received Seylinco's response to section A on April 26, 2006, and its response to sections B and C on May 26, 2006. On June 28, 2006, petitioners filed comments regarding Seylinco's response to sections A through C of the Department's questionnaire and Seylinco responded to these comments on July 10, 2006. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C on July 31, 2006, to which Seylinco responded on August 17, 2006. On August 25, 2006, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C. Petitioners submitted further comments pertaining to Seylinco's questionnaire responses for sections A, B, and C on August 28, 2006. On August 29, 2006, Seylinco provided its response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire and on September 8, 2006, Seylinco filed comments regarding petitioners' August 28, 2006 submission. On June 13, 2006, petitioners submitted a letter alleging that Seylinco made comparison market sales of honey at prices below the cost of production

(COP)during the POR. Seylinco submitted comments related to petitioners' cost allegation on June 21, 2006 and July 31, 2006. On August 24, 2006, the Department determined that petitioners' COP allegation provided a reasonable basis on which to initiate a COP investigation for Seylinco and selected the three largest beekeeper suppliers from which to obtain COP data. *See* Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director Office 7, from the Team, regarding “Petitioners Allegations of Sales Below the Cost of Production in the December 1, 2004-November 30, 2005 Administrative Review,” dated August 24, 2006 (Cost Initiation Memorandum). *See also* Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director Office 7, from the Team, regarding “Selection of Cost of Production Respondents,” dated August 24, 2006 (Cost Selection Memorandum). On September 5, 2006, the Department issued section D of the antidumping questionnaire to solicit cost of production data from the three selected beekeeper suppliers (Beekeeper 1, Beekeeper 2 and Beekeeper 3). 1 On September 15, 2006, Seylinco's counsel informed the Department it was unable to obtain cost information from one of the selected beekeepers (Beekeeper 2) and requested that the Department choose another beekeeper from whom to obtain cost data. Beekeeper 2 claimed that its aviary operations were a sideline business and, as a result, he did not maintain the cost data requested by the Department. Beekeeper 1 and Beekeeper 3 filed responses to section D of the Department's questionnaire on October 10, 2006. On October 12, 2006, the Department sent a second request to Seylinco's counsel seeking Beekeeper 2's production costs. Seylinco's counsel responded to this request on October 20, 2006, explaining again that Beekeeper 2 was not able to provide the requested cost information. On October 20, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for section D to Beekeeper 1 and Beekeeper 3, to which they responded on November 8, 2006. 2 Finally, on November 22, 2006, the Department again requested that Beekeeper 2 provide a response to the Department's section D questionnaire. On December 6, 2006, Seylinco's counsel yet again responded that Beekeeper 2 was unable to submit the requested cost data. 1 The three beekeepers' names are business proprietary information. 2 On November 9, 2006, Seylinco's counsel submitted a correction to its November 8, 2006 supplemental section D response. Petitioners filed pre-preliminary comments on December 7, 2006, which Seylinco addressed in its comments submitted on December 13, 2006. On September 6, 2006, the Department extended the time limit for issuance of the preliminary results of this administrative review to December 20, 2006. *See Honey from Argentina: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order* , 71 FR 52526 (September 6, 2006). Scope of the Review The merchandise covered by this order is honey from Argentina. The products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise covered by this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. Intent Not To Revoke In Part The Department's procedures for revoking an antidumping duty order, whether in whole or in part, are found at 19 CFR 351.222. Section 351.222(e) of the Department's regulations requires, *inter alia* , that a company requesting revocation submit the following:

(1)a certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the future;

(2)a certification that the company sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of such a request; and

(3)an agreement that the order will be reinstated if the company is subsequently found to be selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value. In determining whether to revoke an antidumping duty order in part, the Department must ascertain that the party sold merchandise at not less than normal value ( *i.e.* , zero or *de minimis* margins) for a period of at least three consecutive years. *See* 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2); *see also Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 39997 (July 12, 2005). On December 28, 2005, Seylinco submitted a request for revocation of the antidumping duty order with the requisite certifications set forth in 19 CFR 351.222(e). Seylinco based its request on the absence of dumping for three consecutive review periods, the 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and current administrative reviews. The Department found zero dumping margins in both the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 administrative reviews. *See Honey from Argentina: Final Results, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part* , 71 FR 26333 (May 4, 2006); and *Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 19926 (April 15, 2005). In the current administrative review, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin of zero percent for Seylinco. The margin calculated during the current review period constitutes one of the three consecutive reviews cited by Seylinco to support its request for revocation under section 351.222(b) of the Department's regulations. However, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1) we have also examined Seylinco's shipments over the past three PORs and have preliminarily determined that Seylinco has not shipped in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the request for revocation. Accordingly, we hereby preliminarily find that relative to shipment levels characteristic of the respondent and the industry as a whole, Seylinco is not eligible for revocation of the order. *See* Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, through Robert James, Program Manager, from Maryanne Burke, Case Analyst: “Request by Seylinco S.A. (Seylinco) for Revocation in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from Argentina,” dated December 20, 2006. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), we verified sales information provided by Seylinco, using standard verification procedures such as the examination of relevant sales and financial records. We also conducted verification of the reported costs of respondent beekeeper suppliers. Our verification results are outlined in the public and proprietary versions of our verification reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit

(CRU)in room B-099 of the main Department building. *See* Memorandum to the File, from the Team, regarding “Verification of the Sales Response of Seylinco S.A. in the Antidumping Administrative Review of Honey from Argentina,” dated December 7, 2006. *See also* Memorandum to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting, from Margaret Pusey, regarding “Verification of the Cost Response of Beekeeper 1 in the Antidumping Review of Honey from Argentina” and Memorandum to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting, from Margaret Pusey, regarding “Verification of the Cost Response of Beekeeper 3 in the Antidumping Review of Honey from Argentina Seylinco Cost Verification Report,” dated December 20, 2006. Product Comparison In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all sales of honey covered by the description in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, *supra* , which were sold in the appropriate third-country market, Germany, during the POR to be the foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to honey sold in the United States. For our discussion of market viability and selection of comparison market, *see* the “Normal Value” section of this notice, *infra* . We matched products based on the physical characteristics reported by Seylinco. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the third-country market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the antidumping duty questionnaire and instructions, or to constructed value (CV), as appropriate. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as export price

(EP)or the constructed export price (CEP). The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. In this review, Seylinco claimed only EP sales. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. Seylinco reported a single LOT for all U.S. and third-country sales. Seylinco claimed that its sales were made directly to unaffiliated customers in both the United States and Germany and that the selling activities in both markets are identical. For Seylinco, we preliminarily determine that all reported sales are made at the same LOT, and therefore have not made a LOT adjustment. *See* “Analysis Memorandum for Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Review on Honey from Argentina for Seylinco S.A.” (Seylinco Preliminary Analysis Memorandum) from Maryanne Burke to the File, dated December 20, 2006. Export Price Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. . .,” as adjusted under section 772(c). Section 772(b) of the Tariff Act defines CEP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter,” as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d). Seylinco classified its U.S. sales as EP because all of its sales were made before the date of importation directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the U.S. market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have accepted Seylinco's classification. Normal Value 1. Selection of Comparison Market In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act, to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compare each company's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Because Seylinco did not have any home market sales, we preliminarily find that Seylinco's home market did not provide a viable basis for calculating NV. When sales in the home market are not suitable to serve as the basis for NV, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that sales to a third-country market may be utilized if

(i)the prices in such market are representative;

(ii)the aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by the producer or exporter in the third-country market is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United States; and

(iii)the Department does not determine that a particular market situation in the third-country market prevents a proper comparison with the U.S. price. Seylinco reported Germany as its largest third-country market during the POR in terms of volume of sales. Furthermore, the aggregate quantity of such sales is greater than five percent of sales to the United States. The Department preliminarily determines that the prices in Germany are representative and no particular market situation exists that would prevent a proper comparison to EP. As a result, we based NV on Seylinco's sales to Germany. In summary, therefore, NV for Seylinco is based on third-country (German) market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. For NV, we used the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same LOT as the EP. We calculated NV as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice. 2. Cost of Production Background As noted above, in response to petitioners' cost allegation that Seylinco sold the foreign like product at prices below its COP, the Department initiated a cost investigation of Seylinco. Based upon the determination that petitioners' allegation established reasonable grounds to believe or suspect sales below cost, the Department instructed Beekeeper 2 to respond to section D of the questionnaire on September 5, 2006. See Cost Initiation Memorandum. A. Cost of Production Analysis To calculate a COP and CV for the merchandise under consideration, the Department selected the three largest beekeepers by volume who supplied honey to Seylinco during the POR. *See* Cost Selection Memorandum. B. Calculation of COP We calculated an average COP for Seylinco in the following manner: first, we calculated a simple average based on the costs of two respondent suppliers, Beekeeper 1 and Beekeeper 3, which we applied to both beekeepers. Second, for all other beekeepers who supplied honey to Seylinco during the POR but were not chosen as respondents, we applied this same simple average of Beekeeper 1's and Beekeeper 3's costs. Third, as explained below in the “Use of Facts Otherwise Available” section of this notice, for Seylinco's non-responsive supplier, Beekeeper 2, we have used adverse facts available

(AFA)for the COP in accordance with section 776 of the Tariff Act. We applied our facts available cost figure to the share of Seylinco's total honey supplied by Beekeeper 2. In so doing, we limited our application of AFA to the quantity of honey supplied by Beekeeper 2. For additional detail, *see* Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director of Office of Accounting, from Margaret M. Pusey, regarding “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Seylinco S.A. Beekeeper Respondents,” dated December 20, 2006 (Cost Calculation and Adjustment Memorandum). Beekeeper Cost Respondent Adjustments We relied on the COP data submitted by the two responsive beekeepers in their cost questionnaire response, except for the following adjustments: Common Adjustments We adjusted the reported feed costs for Beekeepers 1 and 3 to reflect the data available from public sources. Individual Beekeeper Adjustments Beekeeper 1 We adjusted feed cost to exclude value-added tax (VAT), other variable costs to exclude costs arising from non-honey businesses, and rent expense for the actual number of hives located on the fields used in the rent calculation. We also adjusted repairs, improvements, and other fixed costs for typographical errors. Beekeeper 2 Beekeeper 2 failed to respond to the Department's three requests for cost information. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act, the Department applied AFA in calculating Beekeeper 2's COP. As described below under “Adverse Facts Available” the Department used the highest monthly cost, adjusted for inflation from the 1999 *Gestion Apicola* cost studies presented in petitioners' sales below cost allegation dated June 13, 2006. Beekeeper 3 We adjusted improvement and drum costs to exclude VAT. We also adjusted production volume to reflect the actual weight of honey sales during the POR. *See* Cost Calculation and Adjustment Memorandum. C. Test of Third-Country Prices and Results of the Cost of Production Test We calculated a simple average COP using the COP of Seylinco's two responding suppliers (Beekeeper 1 and Beekeeper 3) which was applied to both beekeepers as well as all other beekeeper suppliers from whom information was not requested. We then calculated a weighted-average rate to include the unresponsive supplier's (Beekeeper 2's) COP which is based on AFA. In determining whether to disregard third-country market sales made at prices below the COP, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Tariff Act, we examined:

(1)whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and

(2)whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's third-country market sales of a given model ( *i.e.* , CONNUM) were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's third-country market sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because:

(1)they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Tariff Act; and

(2)based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act. We found Seylinco did not have any models for which 20 percent or more of sales volume (by weight) were below cost during the POR. Therefore we did not disregard any of Seylinco's third-country market sales and included all such sales in our calculation of NV. Use of Facts Otherwise Available Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department will apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party:

(1)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;

(2)fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Tariff Act;

(3)significantly impedes a proceeding; or

(4)provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. As discussed in the “Background” section above, on three separate occasions the Department requested that Beekeeper 2 respond to the Department's section D cost questionnaire. Beekeeper 2 instead declined to provide the requested data, asserting that its operations are focused in agricultural pollination, not honey production. Beekeeper 2 insisted its costs “are not representative of operations whose focus is on maximizing the production of honey.” *See* Seylinco's December 6, 2006, submission at 5. Thus, Beekeeper 2 has failed to supply the information necessary for the Department to conduct a complete cost analysis of this review. As Beekeeper 2 is a producer and supplier of honey to Seylinco, we find, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(C)of the Tariff Act, that the use of facts otherwise available is appropriate in calculating COP for Beekeeper 2. In selecting from the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870

(1994)(SAA). Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); *see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( *Nippon* ). We find that Beekeeper 2 failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability in this proceeding and preliminarily determine that the application of AFA is warranted within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. The Department acknowledges the assertions by Beekeeper 2 and Seylinco that Beekeeper 2 primarily is a pollinator and that its costs are structured for pollination, not beekeeping. We note, however, that these are mere assertions which are unverified, and unverifiable given Beekeeper 2's refusal to supply cost data. More importantly, because Beekeeper 2 engages in beekeeping, it is also a producer of honey and therefore an “interested party” within the meaning of sections 771(9) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply an adverse inference for Beekeeper 2's failure to provide requested information and failure to cooperate to the best of his abilities. Consistent with *Nippon* , we find that Beekeeper 2 failed to put forth its maximum efforts to provide the information; indeed, it did not attempt at all to provide the information. It simply refused. We note that our practice is to apply AFA when a supplier to the respondent fails to provide requested information and fails to cooperate to the best of its ability. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From Chile* , 70 FR 6618 (February 8, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. Section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department may use as AFA, information derived from

(1)the petition;

(2)the final determination in the investigation;

(3)any previous review; or

(4)any other information placed on the record. In selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, we have used the cost of production from the 1999 *Gestion Apicola* cost studies originally submitted with the antidumping petition and placed on the record of this review. The Department has relied on the 1999 *Gestion Apicola* cost studies as a basis of facts otherwise available in the first administrative review of this order. *See Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Review* , 69 FR 30283 (May 27, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. We also used the 1999 *Gestion Apicola* cost studies as a basis for the Department's cost investigation of Seylinco for this segment of the proceeding. *See* Cost Initiation Memorandum. In determining an adverse inference for COP data in these preliminary results, we have assigned the highest monthly per-unit COP value cited in the 1999 *Gestion Apicola* cost studies as adjusted for inflation. *See* Cost Calculation and Adjustment Memorandum. The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule ( *i.e.* , this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Tariff Act). Price-to-Price Comparisons We based NV on the third-country prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. Where appropriate, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for other direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. *See* Seylinco's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2006. Additionally, we adjusted gross unit price for billing adjustments, where applicable. Currency Conversion The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank. *See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France* , 68 FR 47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003). However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the Argentine peso. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service. Factiva publishes exchange rates for Monday through Friday only. We used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday for conversion dates involving Saturday through Sunday where necessary. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005: Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (percentage) Seylinco S.A. 0.00 El Mana S.A. 0.00 Mielar/CAA 0.00 While the Department has, for these preliminary results, applied the calculated *de minimis* rate for the sole remaining mandatory respondent, Seylinco, as the review-specific average for the non-reviewed companies, Mielar/CAA and El Mana, we invite comments from interested partes regarding the calculation of the review-specific average. Specifically, we invite interested parties to comment on the rate to be applied to Mielar/CAA and El Mana, considering, but not limited to, the following factors: a) the Department has limited its examination of respondents pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act resulting in the selection of four companies accounting for a significant share of imports during the POR; b) the Department is now examining only one selected company (because of the rescission of the reviews of other selected companies); and

(c)the Department preliminarily has determined that the weighted-average margin for the one examined company is zero. The requirements for filing comments on this issue are discussed immediately below. The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)a statement of the issues,

(2)a brief summary of the argument, and

(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Seylinco we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all Seylinco, El Mana S.A. and Mielar/CAA entries made during the POR. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of honey from Argentina entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:

(1)the cash deposit rates for all companies reviewed ( *i.e.* , Seylinco, El Mana S.A. and Mielar/CAA) will be the rates established in the final results of review;

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

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

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all-others” rate from the investigation (30.24 percent). *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina* , 66 FR 50611 (Oct. 4, 2001), *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina* , 66 FR 58434 (Nov. 21, 2001), and *Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina* , 66 FR 63672 (Dec. 10, 2001). Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: December 20, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22327 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-560-821, C-570-907, C-580-857] Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 29, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Mermelstein or Sean Carey (Indonesia), David Layton or David Neubacher (PRC), and Eric Greynolds or Darla Brown (Korea), AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0371 and

(202)482-5823,

(202)482-1391 and

(202)482-3964, and

(202)482-6071 and

(202)482-2849, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 20, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the countervailing duty investigations of coated free sheet paper

(CFS)from Indonesia, the People's Republic of China

(PRC)and the Republic of Korea (Korea). *See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Coated Free Sheet Paper From the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 68546 (November 27, 2006). Currently, the preliminary determinations are due no later than January 24, 2007. Postponement of Due Date for Preliminary Determinations On December 19, 2006, NewPage Corporation (petitioner) submitted letters requesting that the Department postpone the preliminary determinations of the countervailing duty investigations of CFS from Indonesia, the PRC and Korea by 65 days. Under section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the period for reaching a preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation until not later than the 130th day after the date on which the administering authority initiates an investigation if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period within which the determination must be made under subsection

(b)(section 703(b) of the Act). Accordingly, we are extending the due date for the preliminary determinations by 65 days to no later than March 30, 2007. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act. Dated: December 22, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22417 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and Examiner Applications AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to JoAnne M. Surette, Baldrige National Quality Program, Administration Building, Room 621, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1020, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone

(301)975-5267, fax

(301)948-3716, e-mail *Joanne.surette@nist.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Department of Commerce is responsible for the Baldrige National Quality Program and the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Directly associated with this Award is the Malcolm Baldrige Board of Examiners, an integral part of the National Quality Program. NIST, an agency of the Department's Technology Administration, manages the Baldrige Program. Applicants for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award are required to perform two steps:

(1)the applicant organization certifies that it meets eligibility requirements; and

(2)the applicant organization prepares and completes an application form and the application process. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program Office will assist with or offer advice on any questions or issues that the applicant may have concerning the eligibility process or in completing the self-certification forms. NIST will use the application package to assess and provide feedback on the applicant's quality and performance practices. The application to be a member of the Malcolm Baldrige Board of Examiners is a one-step process. Each year the Award Program recruits highly skilled experts in the fields of manufacturing, service, small business, health care, and education, the five Award eligibility categories, to evaluate the applications that the Program receives. Examiners serve for a one-year term; participation on the board is entirely voluntary. II. Method of Collection Award applicants must comply in writing according to the Baldrige Award Application Forms available at *http://www.baldrige.nist.gov/Award_Application.htm* . The application for the 2007 Board of Examiners can be found at *http://www.baldrige.nist.gov/Examiner_Application.htm* . III. Data *OMB Number:* 0693-0006. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; not-for profit institutions; and individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 900 (Award, 100; and Board of Examiners, 800. *Estimated Time Per Response:* Applications for the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award, 74 hours; and Applications for Board of Examiners, 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 7,800. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: December 22, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-22337 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Inventions Available for Licensing AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of inventions available for licensing. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are owned in whole or in part by the U.S. Government, as represented by the Department of Commerce. The U.S. Government's ownership interest in the inventions are available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR Part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical and licensing information on these inventions may be obtained by writing to: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Technology Partnerships, Attn: Mary Clague, Building 222, Room A155, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Information is also available via telephone: 301-975-4188 , fax 301-869-2751, or e-mail: *mary.clague@nist.gov* . Any request for information should include the NIST Docket number and title for the invention as indicated below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIST may enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the licensee to perform further research on the invention for purposes of commercialization. The inventions available for licensing are: [NIST Docket Number: 04-014] *Title:* Ultra-Wideband Moisture Detector for Building Assemblies. *Abstract:* This invention is jointly owned by the U.S. Government, as represented by the Department of Commerce, and Intelligent Automation, Inc. The invention consists of an antenna array, ultra-wideband radios, signal processing chips, and software. The resulting device allows a user to scan a wall assembly to determine areas of potential moisture accumulation. The software uses the signals received at the antenna array to generate real-time images of the moisture state of the wall. Additional applications for this invention include location of pipes, wires, and studs in walls. [NIST Docket Number: 05-013] *Title:* Iris Digester-Evaporator Interface. *Abstract:* The domestic rights within the United States to this invention are owned by the U.S. Government, as represented by the Department of Commerce. The IRIS Digester-Evaporator interface was invented to overcome problems encountered when an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) was coupled directly to the continuous flow from reversed phase liquid chromatography. The main problems encountered were: high background signal, first increasing and then decreasing in magnitude during the course of a chromatographic gradient of organic solvent, analyte transport difficulties, and carbon build up on the ICP-MS sampling cones from organic solvents. This device produces partial digestion of the sample using nitric acid, aiding analyte transport and detection. After evaporating the organic solvent and nitric acid, the device allows the sample to be sent to ICP-MS in a highly aqueous effluent, the preferred solvent. Through this process, a continuous flow from reverse phase liquid chromatography systems with gradient elution can be easily handled by existing ICP-MS instruments. Dated: December 20, 2006. James E. Hill, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E6-22432 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket No.: 061212329-6329-01] Proposed Voluntary Product Standard PS 1-06, Structural Plywood AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)is distributing a proposed revision of Voluntary Product Standard

(PS)1-95, Construction and Industrial Plywood. This standard, prepared by the Standing Committee for PS 1, establishes requirements, for those who choose to adhere to the standard, for the principal types and grades of structural plywood and provides a basis for common understanding among producers, distributors, and users of the product. Interested parties are invited to review the proposed standard and submit comments to NIST. DATES: Written comments regarding the proposed revision, PS 1-06, should be submitted to the Standards Services Division, NIST, no later than February 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: An electronic copy (an Adobe Acrobat File) of the proposed standard, PS 1-06, can be obtained at the following Web site *ts.nist.gov/docvps.* This site also includes an electronic copy of PS 1-95 (the existing standard), a summary of significant changes, and a form for submitting comments. Written comments on the proposed revision should be submitted to Ms. JoAnne Overman, Standards Services Division, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2100, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2100. Electronic comments may be submitted to *joanne.overman@nist.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. JoAnne Overman, Standards Services Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, telephone:

(301)975-4037; fax: 301-975-4715, e-mail: *joanne.overman@nist.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Voluntary Product Standard PS 1-06 establishes requirements, for those who choose to adhere to the standard, for the principal types and grades of structural plywood. This standard covers the wood species, veneer grading, adhesive bonds, panel construction and workmanship, dimensions and tolerances, marking, moisture content, and packing of plywood intended for construction and industrial uses. The proposed revision of the standard, PS 1-95, Construction and Industrial Plywood, has been developed and is being processed in accordance with Department of Commerce provisions in Title 15 Code of Federal Regulations Part 10, Procedures for the Development of Voluntary Product Standards, as amended (published June 20, 1986). The Standing Committee for PS 1 is responsible for maintaining, revising, and interpreting the standard and comprises producers, distributors, users, and others with an interest in the standard. After reviewing the standard, the Committee determined that portions of it were obsolete and technically inadequate and needed to be revised to reflect current industry practices. The Committee held meetings to review the standard and make needed changes. Much of the work was performed by the document's sponsor, APA—The Engineered Wood Association. Committee members voted on the revision and it was approved by at least three-quarters of the membership. The Committee submitted a report to NIST with the voting results and the draft revised standard. NIST has determined that the revised standard should be issued for public comment. Included in this standard are test methods to determine compliance and a glossary of trade terms and definitions. A quality certification program is provided whereby qualified testing agencies inspect, sample, and test products identified as complying with this standard. Information on species grouping is provided in Appendix A; information on reinspecting practices is provided in Appendix B; and information on the maintenance, history, and current edition of the standard is provided in Appendix C. This Voluntary Product Standard incorporates the International System of Units

(SI)as well as U.S. customary units of measurement. In conversion of U.S. customary units where exact placement is not an issue, such as nail spacing, approximate conversions to SI units are made to yield more easily recognizable numbers. In critical matters, such as panel thickness, more precise conversions to SI units are made. For nominal U.S. customary units, actual dimensions in SI units are given. The values given in SI units are the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only. Advisory notes in this standard and Appendices B and C shall not be considered mandatory. This revision includes the following changes:

(1)Name Change—Since its inception in 1966 when three regional plywood standards were consolidated, the title of PS 1 has been Construction and Industrial Plywood. This revision changes the name to Structural Plywood as that name is more consistent with marketplace terminology.

(2)Deletion of Interior and Intermediate Bond Classifications—Provisions, test methods, and criteria for plywood manufactured with Interior and Intermediate Bond Classifications were removed from the standard because the use of such adhesive systems had become rare since the industry had transitioned to moisture resistant adhesives in the 1950s.

(3)Mold/bacteria tests—Test methods and associated criteria for assessing the potential for mold and bacteria growth on the adhesives used to manufacture plywood were eliminated. Those methods were developed and relevant only to the Interior and Intermediate types of adhesives used decades ago and which had long become obsolete since the industry switched to moisture resistant adhesives.

(4)Terminology—Terminology related to Bond Classifications was revised to clarify that adhesive classification methods were specific to wet bonding strength and did not address other modes of natural degradation of plywood. In addition, the terminology “Interior Bonded with Exterior Glue” was replaced with its alternate term “Exposure 1” as that term has become common in the marketplace.

(5)Performance Testing Language—Language clarifying the sampling and pass/fail criteria of performance testing was revised to be consistent with the language in PS 2-04, Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels.

(6)Table 1—This Table was modified to better reflect the species included in the various Groups and the text referring to Table 1 was also modified accordingly.

(7)Appendix A on Assignment of Species Grouping—This mandatory appendix was added to the standard to clarify the process by which species had been evaluated for tabulation in Table 1.

(8)Overlays—The prescriptive definitions of High Density Overlays

(HDO)and Medium Density Overlays

(MDO)were revised to reflect commercially available products based on input from producers of overlays and overlaid plywood. In addition, HDO grades were differentiated into HDO-concrete form and HDO-industrial and MDO grades were differentiated into MDO-concrete form and MDO-general to recognize that overlays are designed and manufactured to satisfy specific end-use requirements.

(9)Repairs—The size permitted for synthetic repairs was modified to create compatibility with permissible wood repairs.

(10)Exterior Plywood Grades—Table 3 on Exterior Plywood Grades was revised to incorporate new grades of overlaid plywood and concrete form grades.

(11)Underlayment—Section 5.6.3 on Underlayment was revised to clarify the grade and intended end-use.

(12)Minimum Grade for Exposure 1—Table 2 on Exposure 1 grades was revised to permit D-D grade only for plywood qualified through performance testing specified in PS 1 or PS 2. This change creates compatibility with the minimum grade permitted in PS 2. Concurrent with this **Federal Register** Notice, the proposed Voluntary Product Standard PS 1-06 is being distributed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to national experts and other interested parties for review and comment, in order to ensure that the standard constitutes acceptable industry practice. All public comments will be reviewed and considered. The Standing Committee for PS 1 and NIST will revise the standard accordingly. Dated: December 20, 2006. James E. Hill, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E6-22435 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Highly Migratory Species Dealer Reporting Family of Forms AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Dianne Stephan, Highly Migratory Species Division, Northeast Regional Office, at 978-281-9397, or *Dianne.Stephan@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ), the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)is responsible for management of the Nation's marine fisheries. NMFS must also comply with implementing the United States' international obligations as set forth in the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 *et seq.* ). NMFS must collect domestic landings data for Atlantic highly migratory species via dealer reports in order to provide information vital for fishery management. In addition, the United States must monitor the import, export, and re-export of bluefin tuna, frozen bigeye tuna and swordfish in order to comply with international obligations established through membership in the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). ICCAT has implemented a trade monitoring program for bluefin tuna, frozen bigeye tuna and swordfish to discourage illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities as well as further understanding of catches and international trade for these species. Similar objectives are the basis for the Southern bluefin tuna trade monitoring program established by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT). Although the United States is not a member of the CCSBT, effective management of the Southern bluefin tuna resource is in the best interest of United States fish dealers involved in the commerce of this species. Thus, the United States has implemented the CCSBT trade monitoring program, along with the analogous ICCAT programs. This collection serves as a family of forms for Atlantic highly migratory species dealer reporting requirements including the purchase of highly migratory species from fishermen and the import, export, and/or re-export of highly migratory species. II. Method of Collection Information may be mailed or faxed. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0040. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,280. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 5 minutes each for statistical documents and re-export certificates; 1 minute for tagging, 2 hours for validation; 15 minutes for HMS International Trade biweekly report; 15 minutes for Southeast Region HMS biweekly dealer report and Northeast Region trip tickets; 3 minutes for Southeast Region HMS biweekly dealer negative reporting; 15 minutes for Atlantic BFT biweekly dealer report; and 2 minutes for Atlantic bluefin tuna landing cards. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 46,427. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $19,862. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(301)713-2347 or *Karyl.Brewster-Geisz@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)issues Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

(HMS)Chartering Permits to applicable vessels to allow U.S. fishing vessels to fish for HMS within the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)of other nations in a manner consistent with another country's regulations. The permits collect data consistent with an International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) recommendation that states that at the time of the chartering arrangement, the chartering and flag Contracting parties shall provide specific information concerning the charter to the ICCAT Executive Secretary, including vessel details, target species, duration, and consent of the flag Contracting Party or Cooperating non-Contracting Party, Entity, or Fishing Entity. Current regulations require U.S. vessels to submit information regarding their chartering arrangements. The information collected from chartering permit applications will be used to ensure that vessels entering into chartering agreements comply with ICCAT conservation and management measures. The NMFS would use information submitted in applications for chartering arrangements, and other applicable notifications (such as termination notifications from the applicant indicating a desire to terminate their chartering agreement), to monitor the activities and durations of such arrangements targeting HMS in the Atlantic Ocean. NMFS would report this information annually to the Executive Secretary of ICCAT as a means of demonstrating compliance with ICCAT's conservation and management recommendations. II. Method of Collection Information is submitted on forms or other written format, and may be submitted electronically by e-mail. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0495. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business and other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 10. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 40 minutes for a Chartering permit application; and 5 minutes for a termination notification. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 8. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $8. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(1)actual abundance can be determined using aerial surveys and a correction factor, and distinct stocks exist latitudinally;

(2)seals are a major (>5%) source of natural mortality for nearshore fishes and cephalopods;

(3)pollutants and anthropogenic inputs are compromising seal health;

(4)human disturbance causes increased energetic costs and seals can have significant effects on fisheries;

(5)dispersal of juvenile harbor seals increases survival; and

(6)male harbor seals establish underwater territories and maintain hierarchies using underwater vocalizations and aggression. To test these hypotheses researchers will capture a maximum of 670 harbor seals annually. An additional 2,910 individuals may be taken annually via Level B harassment by incidental disturbance during capture or scat collection and exposure to playback of vocalizations. Animals captured would have some or all of the following procedures done: mass and morphometrics, blubber depth and biopsy, lavage/enema, flipper tagging and instrument application, blood sample, swabs, and skin and hair sampling. The applicant requests up to two incidental mortalities per year. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Documents may be reviewed in the following locations: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone

(301)713-2289; fax

(301)427-2521; and Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone

(206)526-6150; fax

(206)526-6426; Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone

(907)586-7221; fax

(907)586-7249; and Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone

(562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018. Dated: December 20, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-22332 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Determination under the African Growth and Opportunity Act December 22, 2006. AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Directive to the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. SUMMARY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA)has determined that certain textile and apparel goods from Mali shall be treated as “handloomed, handmade, folklore articles, or ethnic printed fabrics” and qualify for preferential treatment under the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Imports of eligible products from Mali with an appropriate visa will qualify for duty-free treatment. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Flaaten, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202)482-3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Sections 112(a) and 112(b)(6) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Title I of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-200) (“AGOA”), as amended by Section 7(c) of the AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-274) (“AGOA Acceleration Act”) (19 U.S.C. §§ 3721(a) and (b)(6)); Sections 2 and 5 of Executive Order No. 13191 of January 17, 2001; Sections 25-27 and Paras. 13-14 of Presidential Proclamation 7912 of June 29, 2005. AGOA provides preferential tariff treatment for imports of certain textile and apparel products of beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries, including hand-loomed, handmade, or folklore articles of a beneficiary country that are certified as such by the competent authority in the beneficiary country. The AGOA Acceleration Act further expanded AGOA by adding ethnic printed fabrics to the list of textile and apparel products made in the beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries that may be eligible for the preferential treatment described in section 112(a) of the AGOA. In Executive Order 13191 (January 17, 2001) and Presidential Proclamation 7912 (June 29, 2005), the President authorized CITA to consult with beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries and to determine which, if any, particular textile and apparel goods shall be treated as being hand-loomed, handmade, folklore articles, or ethnic printed fabrics. (66 FR 7271-72 and 70 FR 37959, 37961 & 63) In a letter to the Commissioner of Customs dated January 18, 2001, the United States Trade Representative directed Customs to require that importers provide an appropriate export visa from a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country to obtain preferential treatment under section 112(a) of the AGOA (66 FR 7837). The first digit of the visa number corresponds to one of nine groupings of textile and apparel products that are eligible for preferential tariff treatment. Grouping “9” is reserved for handmade, hand-loomed, folklore articles, or ethnic printed fabrics. CITA has consulted with Malian authorities and has determined that hand-loomed fabrics, hand-loomed articles (e.g., hand-loomed rugs, scarves, place mats, and tablecloths), handmade articles made from hand-loomed fabrics, the folklore articles described in Annex A, and ethnic printed fabrics described in Annex B to this notice, if produced in and exported from Mali, are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under section 112(a) of the AGOA, as amended. After further consultations with Malian authorities, CITA may determine that additional textile and apparel goods shall be treated as folklore articles or ethnic printed fabrics. In the letter published below, CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection to allow duty-free entry of such products under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9819.11.27 if accompanied by an appropriate AGOA visa in grouping “9”. Philip J. Martello, Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements December 22, 2006. Commissioner, *Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229.* Dear Commissioner: The Committee for the Implementation of Textiles Agreements (“CITA”), pursuant to Sections 112(a) and (b)(6) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Title I of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-200) (“AGOA”), as amended by Section 7(c) of the AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-274) (“AGOA Acceleration Act”) (19 U.S.C. §§ 3721(a) and (b)(6)), Executive Order No. 13191 of January 17, 2001, and Presidential Proclamation 7912 of June 29, 2005, has determined, effective on January 16, 2007, that the following articles shall be treated as “handloomed, handmade, folklore articles, and ethnic printed fabrics” under the AGOA:

(a)handloomed fabrics, handloomed articles (e.g., handloomed rugs, scarves, placemats, and tablecloths), and hand-made articles made from handloomed fabrics, if made in Mali from fabric handloomed in Mali;

(b)the folklore articles described in Annex A; and

(c)ethnic printed fabrics described in Annex B, if made in Mali. Such articles are eligible for duty-free treatment only if entered under subheading 9819.11.27 and accompanied by a properly completed visa for product grouping “9”, in accordance with the provisions of the Visa Arrangement between the Government of Mali and the Government of the United States Concerning Textile and Apparel Articles Claiming Preferential Tariff Treatment under Section 112 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000. After further consultations with Malian authorities, CITA may determine that additional textile and apparel goods shall be treated as folklore articles or ethnic printed fabrics. Sincerely, Philip J. Martello, *Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.* **ANNEX A: Malian Folklore Products** CITA has determined that the following textile and apparel goods shall be treated as folklore articles for purposes of the AGOA if made in Mali. Articles must be ornamented in characteristic Malian or regional folk style. An article may not include modern features such as zippers, elastic, elasticized fabrics, snaps, or hook-and-pile fasteners (such as velcroc or similar holding fabric). An article may not incorporate patterns that are not traditional or historical to Mali, such as airplanes, buses, cowboys, or cartoon characters and may not incorporate designs referencing holidays or festivals not common to traditional Malian culture, such as Halloween and Thanksgiving. **Eligible folklore articles:** **(a) Hand-woven Blanket/Tapestry:** Strips of handloomed cotton or wool or wool-cotton blend fabric, 3-10 inches wide, hand or machine sewn together to make a larger piece of fabric. Dimensions and designs depend on use. Uses include scarves, body wrap, blankets, bedspreads, and interior room decoration accessory. Designs are woven into the fabric using dyed yarns or painted, stenciled or printed after assembly. **(b) Women's Boubou:** A loose-fitting garment with large open armholes made of bright solid colored machine-made African brocade (also called basin) or hand-woven fabric. It is accompanied by a matching wrap skirt and head wrap. The garment is decorated with hand or machine-sewn embroidery around a round or U-shaped neckline. **(c) Ladies' Long Traditional Boubou:** This ladies' dress is a loose-fitting garment with matching scarf and head wrap of bright colored machine-made fabric characteristic of ethnic printed fabrics, or of hand-woven fabrics. Garment is decorated with lace attached around the neckline, bottom hem, and sleeves. **(d) Men's Boubou of Ethnic Printed Fabrics:** This loose-fitting two-piece set is an ankle-length pullover outer tunic with matching trousers. The tunic has oversized armholes and an asymmetrical neckline with a center chest pocket. The garment is embroidered around the neckline. The trousers are secured at the waist by a drawstring and may be baggy with extra-fullness at the thighs and may contain side seam pockets. **(e) Men's Boubou of African Brocade (Basin) Fabric:** This loose fitting three-piece set contains an ankle length pullover outer tunic, and inner tunic, and matching trousers. The outer tunic has oversized armholes and an asymmetrical neckline with a center chest pocket and is embroidered around the neckline. The inner tunic is embroidered around the neckline and may have pockets. The trousers are secured at the waist by a drawstring and are baggy with extra-fullness at the thighs and may contain pockets. **(f) Bologan Poncho:** The “poncho” is loosely constructed made of several strips of narrow hand-woven fabrics hand or machine sewn together, with a slit for a neck opening. The garment is patterned with geometric-designed mud cloth. **(g) Dogon Hunter's Tunic:** A loose-fitting upper garment made by hand or machine sewing several strips of narrow hand-woven fabrics together, it is decorated with metal staples forming geometric designs. The garment is dyed a solid dark blue or dark brown in color. **ANNEX B: Malian Ethnic Printed Fabrics** Each ethnic print must meet all of the criteria listed below:

(A)selvedge on both edges

(B)width of less than 50 inches

(C)classifiable under subheading 5208.52.30 1 or 5208.52.40 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 1 printed plain weave fabrics of cotton, 85% or more cotton by weight, weighing over 100g/m2 but not more than 200 g/m2, of yarn number 42 or lower 2 printed plain weave fabrics of cotton, 85% or more cotton by weight, weighing over 100g/m2 but not more than 200g/m2, of yarn numbers 43-68

(D)contains designs, symbols, and other characteristics of African prints normally produced for and sold in Africa by the piece.

(E)made from fabric woven in the U.S. using U.S. yarn or woven in one or more eligible sub-Saharan beneficiary countries using U.S or African yarn

(F)printed, including waxed, in one or more eligible sub-Saharan beneficiary countries [FR Doc. E6-22328 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam December 22, 2006. AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 29, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202)482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Web site (http://www.cbp.gov), or call

(202)344-2650. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel Web site at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended. The Bilateral Textile Agreement of July 17, 2003, as amended, between the Governments of the United States and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, establishes limits, until the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), for certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The current limits for certain categories are being increased for carryforward applied from the 2007 limits, and the limits for 2007 are being reduced to account for this carryforward being applied to the current limits. A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel Web site at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov). See 70 FR 75156 (December 19, 2005), and 70 FR 76998 (December 22, 2006) respectively. Philip J. Martello, Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements December 22, 2006. Commissioner, *U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229* Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directives issued to you on December 13, 2005 and December 19, 2006, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. These directives concern imports of certain cotton, wool, and man-made fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Vietnam and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2006 and extends through December 31, 2006, and the twelve-month period which begins on January 1, 2007 and extends through December 31, 2007, respectively. Effective on December 29, 2006, you are directed to increase the 2006 limits for the following categories, as provided for under the terms of the current bilateral textile agreement between the Governments of the United States and Vietnam: Category Restraint limit 1 200 151,132 kilograms. 332 241,370 dozen pairs. 334/335 903,044 dozen. 338/339 18,464,333 dozen. 340/640 2,697,101 dozen. 341/641 1,044,925 dozen. 342/642 774,271 dozen. 347/348 9,740,910 dozen. 359-S/659-S 2 720,326 kilograms. 440 2,945 dozen. 620 8,731,714 square meters. 632 405,529 dozen pairs. 638/639 1,637,741 dozen. 647/648 2,585,569 dozen. 1 The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December 31, 2005. 2 Category 359-S: only HTS numbers 6112.39.0010, 6112.49.0010, 6211.11.8010, 6211.11.8020, 6211.12.8010 and 6211.12.8020; Category 659-S: only HTS numbers 6112.31.0010, 6112.31.0020, 6112.41.0010, 6112.41.0020, 6112.41.0030, 6112.41.0040, 6211.11.1010, 6211.11.1020, 6211.12.1010 and 6211.12.1020. Also, effective on December 29, 2006, you are directed to reduce the 2007 limits for the following categories, as provided for under the terms of the current bilateral textile agreement between the Governments of the United States and Vietnam: Category Restraint limit 1 200 371,188 kilograms. 332 1,237,293 dozen pairs. 334/335 798,278 dozen. 338/339 16,238,783 dozen. 340/640 2,457,533 dozen. 341/641 942,299 dozen. 342/642 686,600 dozen. 347/348 8,670,346 dozen. 359-S/659-S 2 649,579 kilograms. 440 2,606 dozen. 620 7,874,136 square meters. 632 625,966 dozen pairs. 638/639 1,476,892 dozen. 647/648 2,401,605 dozen. 1 The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December 31, 2006. 2 Category 359-S: only HTS numbers 6112.39.0010, 6112.49.0010, 6211.11.8010, 6211.11.8020, 6211.12.8010 and 6211.12.8020; Category 659-S: only HTS numbers 6112.31.0010, 6112.31.0020, 6112.41.0010, 6112.41.0020, 6112.41.0030, 6112.41.0040, 6211.11.1010, 6211.11.1020, 6211.12.1010 and 6211.12.1020. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Sincerely, Philip J. Martello, *Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.* [FR Doc. E6-22347 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [DOD-2006-OS-0225] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. ACTION: Notice to delete systems of records. SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is deleting a system of records notice from its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: December 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: OSD Privacy Act Coordinator, Records Management Section, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Juanita Irvin at

(703)696-4940. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject tot he Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above. The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection

(r)of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report. Dated: December 22, 2006. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DODDS 22 System name: DOD Dependent Children's School Program Files (June 12, 1997, 62 FR 32089). Reason: The system of records is maintained under the Office of the Secretary notice DODEA 26, entitled, Department of Defense Education Activity Dependent Children's School Program Files (November 1, 2006, 71 FR 64247). [FR Doc. 06-9928 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 16

Traces to 16 documents

CFR