Proposed Rules. Advance notice of proposed rulemaking

27,868 words·~127 min read·/register/2007/01/09/07-23

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1500 Children's Jewelry Containing Lead; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comments and Information AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) is considering whether there may be a need to ban children's metal jewelry containing more than 0.06% lead by weight in metal components. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPR)initiates a rulemaking proceeding under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). The Commission is soliciting written comments concerning the risks of injury associated with children's jewelry containing lead, the regulatory options discussed in this notice, other possible ways to address these risks, and the economic impacts of the various regulatory alternatives. The Commission also invites interested persons to submit an existing standard, or a statement of intent to modify or develop a voluntary standard, to address the risk of injury described in this notice. DATES: Written comments and submissions in response to this document must be received by March 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be e-mailed to *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov* . Comments should be captioned “Children's Jewelry Containing Lead ANPR.” Comments may also be mailed, preferably in five copies, to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, or delivered to the same address (telephone

(301)504-7923). Comments also may be filed by facsimile to

(301)504-0127. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Hatlelid, PhD, M.P.H., Directorate for Health Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone

(301)504-7254, e-mail *khatlelid@cpsc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background On May 16, 2006, the CPSC docketed Sierra Club's request for a ban on children's jewelry containing more than 0.06% lead by weight as a petition under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act

(FHSA)(Petition No. HP 06-1). 71 FR 35416. Information obtained from the petition and CPSC staff investigations indicate that excess lead exposure may result when children ingest metal jewelry containing more than 0.06% lead by weight in metal components. On December 11, 2006, the Commission voted to grant the petition and begin a rulemaking proceeding to address the risk of injury described in this notice. 1 1 Acting Chairman Nancy A. Nord filed a statement which is available from the Office of the Secretary or on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.cpsc.gov* . B. The Risk of Injury The scientific community generally recognizes a level of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (μg/dL) as a level of concern with respect to lead poisoning in children. Continuing national, state and local efforts to remove lead hazards from children's environments ( *e.g.* , eliminating lead from household paint, gasoline, and food cans) have resulted in reductions in mean blood lead levels

(BLLs)and in the number of children with BLLs exceeding 10 μg/dL. Data from a recent national survey indicated that an estimated 310,000 U.S. children aged one to five years have BLLs exceeding this level (about 1.6 percent of children aged one to five years). Currently, lead-based paint in older housing remains the most common source for excess lead exposure for children, but exposures from other sources of lead, such as certain ethnic medicines, imported candy and spices, ceramicware, and other types of consumer products, including jewelry, have been documented. Investigations by the CPSC Laboratory staff indicated that the extractability of lead from children's metal jewelry is strongly associated with the lead content of these items. Staff investigations also indicated that when metal jewelry is ingested by children, excess lead exposure is likely for items that contain more than 0.06% lead, and that the amount of exposure likely increases with increasing lead content in the item. C. Statutory Authority This proceeding is conducted pursuant to the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261 *et seq.* Section 2(f)(1)(A) of the FHSA defines “hazardous substance” to include any substance or mixture of substances which is toxic and may cause substantial illness as a proximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use, including reasonably foreseeable ingestion by children. 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(A). Under section 2(q)(1)(B) of the FHSA, a substance is a “banned hazardous substance” if the Commission determines that, “notwithstanding such cautionary labeling as is or may be required under this Act for that substance, the degree or nature of the hazard involved in the presence or use of such [hazardous] substance in households is such that the objective of the protection of the public health and safety can be adequately served only by keeping such substance, when so intended or packaged, out of the channels of interstate commerce” 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1)(B). A ban under section 2(q)(1)(B) of the FHSA may be used to reach articles intended for use in the household that are determined to be hazardous substances under section 3(a)(1). Section 3(a)(1) of the FHSA provides that the Commission may, by regulation, declare to be a “hazardous substance” any substance or mixture of substances which meets the requirements of section 2(f)(1)(A). 15 U.S.C. 1262(a)(1). If the section 3(a)(1) proceeding resulted in a determination that jewelry containing more that 0.06% lead was a hazardous substance, then, if the article is “intended for use by children,” the jewelry would be banned automatically under section 2(q)(1)(A) of the FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1)(A). Section 3(a)(2) specifies the procedures for issuance of a regulation declaring a substance or mixture of substances to be a “hazardous substance.” 15 U.S.C. 1262(a)(2). Sections 2(q)(2) and 3(f) through 3(i) specify the procedures for issuing a rule classifying a substance as a banned hazardous substance under section 2(q)(1)(B) of the Act. 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(2), 1262(f)-(i). In accordance with section 3(f), this proceeding is commenced by issuance of this ANPR. 15 U.S.C. 1262(f). After considering any comments submitted in response to this ANPR, the Commission will decide whether to issue a proposed rule and a preliminary regulatory analysis in accordance with section 3(h) of the FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1262(h). If a proposed rule is issued, the Commission would then consider the comments received in response to the proposed rule in deciding whether to issue a final rule and a final regulatory analysis. 15 U.S.C. 1262(i). D. Regulatory Alternatives One or more of the following alternatives could be used to reduce the identified risks associated with children's metal jewelry containing lead. 1. *Mandatory rule* . The Commission could issue a rule declaring children's metal jewelry containing lead to be a banned hazardous substance. 2. *Labeling rule* . The Commission could issue a rule requiring specified warnings and instructions for children's metal jewelry containing lead. 3. *Existing standard* . The Commission could adopt an existing standard, in whole or in part, as a proposed regulation. 4. *Voluntary standard* . If the industry developed, adopted, and substantially conformed to an adequate voluntary standard, the Commission could defer to the voluntary standard in lieu of issuing a mandatory rule. 5. *Corrective Actions under Section 15 of the FHSA* . The Commission has authority under section 15 of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1274, to pursue corrective actions on a case-by-case basis if the Commission determines that a product constitutes a banned hazardous substance. E. Existing Standards CPSC staff reviewed existing State standards relevant to lead in children's metal jewelry promulgated in California and Illinois. On September 22, 2006, legislation was enacted in California on lead containing jewelry, A.B. No. 1681. This law provides, in part, for phased-in compliance of specified materials to be used in jewelry for retail sale in California. This law contains a number of provisions separated by type of material used in the product or components, and by whether the product is for children aged six years and younger. Children's products must contain less than 0.06 percent lead in certain metallic components, and certain other components are limited to less than 0.02 percent lead. Lead content in children's jewelry is limited to less than 0.06 percent by September 1, 2007, and plastic and rubber components to less than 0.02 percent by August 31, 2009. The use of glass or crystal is limited to a total of one gram in the product unless it contains less than 0.02 percent lead by weight and has no intentionally added lead. On June 20, 2006, the State of Illinois enacted Public Act 094-0879, which amends the Illinois Lead Poisoning Prevention Act to define a “lead bearing substance” as, in part, “any item containing or coated with lead such that the lead content is more than six-hundredths of one percent (0.06%) lead by total weight.” This act restricts the use of lead bearing substances and bans their use “in or upon any items, including, but not limited to, clothing, accessories, jewelry, decorative objects, edible items, candy, food, dietary supplements, toys, furniture, or other articles used by or intended to be and chewable by children.” This act covers children aged six years and younger. Canada has also established regulations concerning lead in children's jewelry under “The Children's Jewellery Regulations,” effective May 10, 2005. The regulations provide limits both for lead content (600 mg/kg; equivalent to 0.06 percent) and “migratable” or accessible lead (90 mg/kg) for children's jewelry items imported, advertised, or sold in Canada. Children's jewelry is defined as “jewellery item(s) which is

(are)designed, sized, decorated, packaged, and/or otherwise produced, advertised or sold in such a manner as to make it reasonably apparent that the item(s) is intended to attract, appeal to, or be worn primarily by a child under the age of 15 years.” These standards offer vastly differing requirements for test methods, test materials, product categories, age categories, and so forth. Provisions in standards that do not address jewelry do not fall within the scope of this proceeding. At this time, CPSC staff is focusing on metal jewelry containing lead because the available data indicate that such products could be hazardous due to their lead content and potential for exposure. More information concerning potential lead exposure of other non-metal materials that may be used in jewelry is needed before staff can assess whether other non-metal materials used in jewelry present a hazard. Furthermore, additional information and data must be obtained before staff can properly assess the appropriate test or test methodology to be used, the appropriate product or products to be addressed, and the appropriate age group to be covered under any proposed regulation. F. Economic Considerations CPSC staff gathered data on certain classifications of jewelry and toy manufacturers. The U.S. Census Bureau, using the North American Industry Classification System, provides data on three types of manufacturers: Jewelry (Except Costume); Jewelers' Material and Lapidary Work; and Costume Jewelry and Novelty Manufacturing. Of these, the Jewelry (Except Costume) manufacturers, which deal primarily with precious metals, constitute about 76 percent of the value of jewelry manufacturing shipments; the Costume category accounts for about ten percent of shipments. For 2004, the total value of shipments for all three classifications was more than $7.8 billion. The data indicated that nearly 3,000 establishments produce jewelry items in the U.S. Most of these are relatively small; almost 60 percent have one to four employees and 84 percent have fewer than 20 employees. All but 19 firms have fewer than 500 employees (the definition of small business used by the U.S. Small Business Administration). As of 2004, domestic production was about 24 percent of the total U.S. market, with products from Israel, India, Belgium, China, Thailand, and Italy making up about three-quarters of jewelry imports by value. Because children's jewelry may include toy jewelry, staff considered data for toy, doll, and stuffed animal accessories that may include jewelry items. The value of shipments of these products is approximately $30 million annually, although this figure includes many products that would not be considered jewelry. Finally, staff considered manufacturing of craft kits and supplies, which would include jewelry-making kits. The value of shipments for this category is about $180 million annually. This figure also includes many products that would not be considered jewelry. While this information provides an overview of U.S. manufacturing of jewelry and related toy products, the data do not allow staff to analyze the specific impact of any potential regulation of lead in children's jewelry. Further, while staff has information about the overall economic impact of excess lead exposure in children, there is no information available that addresses the effect of lead exposures specifically from children's jewelry. While reducing lead in children's jewelry could result in reduced lead exposure in children, the extent of the reduction and the resulting benefits may be difficult to quantify. Comments on these issues and on costs and benefits of a potential rule are specifically solicited. G. Solicitation of Information and Comments This ANPR is an initial step in a proceeding that could result in a mandatory rule banning children's metal jewelry containing more than 0.06% lead by weight in metal components. All interested persons are invited to submit to the Commission their comments on any aspect of the alternatives discussed above. In particular, CPSC solicits the following additional information: 1. Information on any children believed to have been injured or killed as a result of ingesting metal jewelry containing lead, including the ages of such children, and their BLLs; 2. The circumstances under which these injuries and deaths occurred, including information on the suspected metal jewelry product; 3. The costs to manufacturers of redesigning children's metal jewelry to remove the risk from lead or the cost of removing children's metal jewelry containing lead from the market; 4. A description of substitutes for children's metal jewelry containing lead that could reduce the described risk of injury; 5. Comparisons of the costs and utility of using lead in children's metal jewelry versus any available substitute products; 6. Other information on the potential costs and benefits of potential rules; 7. Steps that have been taken by industry or others to reduce the risk of injury to children due to lead from metal jewelry products; 8. The likelihood and nature of any significant economic impact of a rule on small entities; 9. Alternatives the Commission should consider, as well as the costs and benefits of those alternatives to minimize the burdens or costs to small entities; 10. The costs and benefits of mandating a testing requirement; 11. The costs and benefits of mandating a quality control/quality assurance program requirement and/or recordkeeping requirement; 12. The market share of children's jewelry relative to all jewelry for both precious and costume (non-precious) jewelry; 13. The estimated average expected life of a piece of jewelry (precious and non-precious) and/or an estimated number of jewelry pieces in U.S. households; 14. The distribution of jewelry sales by manufacturing and/or retail price for both precious and costume (non-precious) jewelry; and 15. Information on the lead content and accessibility of lead in non-metallic materials and components used in children's jewelry containing lead including, but not limited to, plastics, rubber, crystals, glass and ceramics. Also, in accordance with section 3(f) of the FHSA, the Commission solicits: 1. Written comments with respect to the risk of injury identified by the Commission, the regulatory alternatives being considered, and other possible alternatives for addressing the risk. 2. Any existing standard or portion of a standard which could be issued as a proposed regulation. 3. A statement of intention to modify or develop a voluntary standard to address the risk of injury discussed in this notice, along with a description of a plan (including a schedule) to do so. Comments should be e-mailed to *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.* Comments should be captioned “Children's Jewelry Containing Lead ANPR.” Comments may also be mailed, preferably in five copies, to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, or delivered to the same address (telephone

(301)504-7923). Comments also may be filed by facsimile to

(301)504-0127. All comments and submissions should be received no later than March 12, 2007. H. FHSA Enforcement During the Pendency of the Rulemaking Manufacturers, importers and retailers of children's jewelry are reminded that the Federal Hazardous Substances Act of its own force bans articles of children's jewelry that meet the statutory definition of a “banned hazardous substance.” 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1). The CPSC Compliance staff therefore intends to continue enforcing the statute as appropriate during the pendency of this rulemaking. To avoid problems, manufacturers, importers and retailers are advised to follow the guidance provided in the Interim Enforcement Policy for Children's Metal Jewelry Containing Lead (February 3, 2005) which is available on the CPSC Web site at *http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/pbjewelgd.pdf.* Dated: January 4, 2007. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E7-109 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 101, 125 and 141 [Docket No. RM07-2-000] Accounting and Reporting Requirements for Nonoperating Public Utilities and Licensees Issued December 21, 2006. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing to amend its accounting and reporting regulations, in Parts 101 and 141, to require public utilities and licensees to continue to follow the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts (USofA) and to file annual and quarterly financial reports when they have ceased making jurisdictional sales of electric energy, or providing jurisdictional transmission service, but continue collecting amounts pursuant to a Commission-accepted tariff or rate schedule, or a Commission order. The proposed rulemaking is intended to close a gap in the Commission's regulations which apply now only to operating public utilities and licensees. Under the existing regulations, the Commission cannot oversee, monitor, or audit costs that provide information necessary to the Commission's oversight responsibilities and the protection of the public interest. The Commission also is seeking comments regarding the applicability of Part 125, Preservation of Records of Public Utilities and Licensees, to public utilities or licensees which have ceased operations, as described above, but continue to collect amounts pursuant to a Commission-approved tariff or rate schedule, or a Commission order. This notice of proposed rulemaking reasonably interprets the current language of Part 125 to require the continued application of Part 125 to nonoperating public utilities and licensees, but seeks comments as to whether revisions to Part 125 may be necessary. DATES: Comments are due February 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. RM07-2-000 by one of the following methods: • *Agency Web Site:* *http://www.ferc.gov.* Follow the instructions found in the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble for submitting comments via the eFiling link. • *Mail:* Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please refer to the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble for additional information on how to file paper comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Stelck, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202)502-6648, *jane.stelck@ferc.gov.* Thomas Russo (Technical), Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202)502-8792, *thomas.russo@ferc.gov.* Michael Krauthamer, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202)502-6159, *michael.krauthamer@ferc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction 1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing to amend the accounting and reporting requirements in Parts 101 and 141 of its regulations to require public utilities and licensees to continue to follow the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts (USofA) 1 and to file quarterly and annual financial reports 2 when they have ceased to make jurisdictional sales of electric energy or to provide jurisdictional transmission service but continue to collect amounts pursuant to a Commission-accepted tariff or rate schedule, or a Commission order. These proposed regulations are intended to close a gap in current accounting and reporting requirements that no longer apply when the operations of a public utility or licensee are discontinued. The resulting gap leaves unreported information and data which are important to the Commission's administration of its jurisdictional responsibilities under the Federal Power Act (FPA). 3 Specifically, these changes are intended to address a situation, for example, in which a nuclear generating plant may shut down its operations but continue to collect decommissioning and other administrative costs pursuant to a Commission order. For this purpose, the Commission proposes additions and revisions to Parts 101 and 141 of the Commission's regulations, as follows:

(1)Add a new category, designated “nonoperating” to the classification of utilities subject to compliance with the USofA in the General Instructions of Part 101; and

(2)revise §§ 141.1, 141.2 and 141.400 of Part 141 to require nonoperating public utilities and licensees whose operations have ceased but who continue to collect amounts pursuant to a Commission tariff or rate schedule, or a Commission order, to continue to comply with the Commission's reporting requirements. 1 18 CFR Part 101. 2 18 CFR Part 141. 3 16 U.S.C. 824 *et seq.* 2. The Commission is also seeking comments on the applicability of Part 125, which sets forth record retention requirements for public utilities and licensees. This notice of proposed rulemaking reasonably interprets the current language of Part 125 to provide that the requirements of Part 125 continue to apply to nonoperating entities who continue to collect amounts pursuant to a Commission-approved tariff or rate schedule, or a Commission order. The Commission seeks comments, however, as to whether Part 125 may require particular revisions. II. Background 3. The Commission's regulations in Parts 101 and 141 require public utilities and licensees whose sales or transmission service exceed certain prescribed levels to follow the USofA and to file annual and quarterly financial reports, Forms No. 1, 1-F, and 3-Q, respectively. This information is necessary to enable the Commission to fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the FPA and is essential to the Commission's decisionmaking process. The information, which is publicly available, also allows customers, state commissions, and others to evaluate the rates charged for sales of electric energy and transmission of electric energy. 4. Under the Commission's existing regulations, public utilities and licensees are relieved of these accounting and reporting requirements when they cease making sales or providing transmission. This is true even when these nonoperating public utilities and licensees continue to collect amounts pursuant to a Commission-approved tariff or rate schedule, or a Commission order. III. Discussion 5. In recent years, this accounting and reporting gap has been highlighted when, for example, nuclear generating plants shut down but continue to collect decommissioning and other administrative costs under a Commission-accepted tariff or rate schedule, or a Commission order. 4 The amounts collected by these companies are material and may span a decade or longer. 5 The occurrence of these and the potential occurrence of similar circumstances impede the Commission's ability to collect information, monitor, or audit the underlying costs when accounting and reporting requirements no longer apply. The Commission has a continuing need to have access to books and records and to receive periodic financial reports for any jurisdictional entity, even when that entity has ceased operations but continues to collect amounts pursuant to a Commission-accepted tariff or rate schedule, or a Commission order. Without Commission oversight, customers and ratepayers cannot be assured that these billings are just and reasonable. 4 *See* , *e.g.* , *Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company* , 92 FERC ¶ 61,005

(2000)(approving decommissioning cost collections.) 5 For example, Connecticut Yankee collected $16.7 million per year in decommissioning funds from 2000 to 2004 and $93 million in 2005 and 2006. *Id.* 6. To remedy this gap in the regulations and to ensure that the Commission has all necessary information to perform its oversight duties, this rulemaking proposes to add a new classification in Part 101, General Instructions, *Classification of utilities* , which will apply the USofA to nonoperating Major and Nonmajor public utilities and licensees. Additionally, the Commission proposes revisions to the reporting requirements contained in Part 141 of its regulations to require that nonoperating public utilities and licensees that have ceased operation, but continue to collect amounts pursuant to a Commission-accepted tariff or rate schedule, or a Commission order, continue to file annual and quarterly reports pursuant to these regulations. 7. At this time, the Commission is not proposing any additions or revisions to Part 125, which requires public utilities and licensees to retain records for designated periods of time. This proposed rulemaking is based on a reasonable reading of the current language in Part 125, that the requirements of Part 125 continue to apply to nonoperating public utilities and licensees even when their respective operations cease but they continue to collect amounts under a Commission-accepted tariff or rate schedule or a Commission order. We seek comments, however, as to whether revisions to Part 125 may be necessary. 8. At this time, it is anticipated that the proposed regulations will affect only a few entities, and that reporting and compliance requirements will not be burdensome. 9. Finally, the Commission proposes that these accounting and reporting requirements become effective 30 days after publication of the Final Rule in the **Federal Register** . IV. Information Collection Statement The following collections of information contained in this proposed rule are being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 6 OMB's regulations require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule. 7 6 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 7 *See* 5 CFR 1320.11. Comments are solicited on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimated, ways to enhance the quality, utility, clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. The Commission expects that only a very small number of public utilities and licensees would be affected by the proposed rule. The Commission also anticipates there will be a minimal impact, if any, on these entities. *Information Collection Costs:* The Commission seeks comments on the costs to comply with these requirements. The Commission anticipates that there will be minimal impact relative to the costs of compliance. *Title:* FERC Form No. 1, “Annual report of Major electric utilities, licensees, and others”; FERC Form No. 1-F; “Annual report for Nonmajor public utilities and licensees”; FERC Form No. 3-Q, “Quarterly financial report of electric utilities, licensees, and natural gas companies”; and FERC-555. *Action:* Proposed information collections. *OMB Control Nos.:* 1902-0021; 1902-0029; 1902-0205, and 1902-0098. *Respondents:* Businesses or other for profit. *Frequency of responses:* Annually and quarterly. *Necessity of the Information:* The information maintained and collected under the requirements of Parts 101 and 141 is essential to the Commission's oversight duties. Under the existing regulations, nonoperating public utilities and licensees are not required to follow the USofA, or submit financial reports when sales of electric energy or transmission of electric energy cease, even when they continue to bill amounts pursuant to a Commission-accepted tariff or rate schedule, or a Commission order. Without access to accounting books and records and periodic financial reports, the Commission cannot conduct rate reviews, audits and other oversight activities with respect to these public utilities and licensees. *Internal Review:* The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to the USofA and to its financial reports and has determined that the proposed changes are necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection, communication, and management within the public industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support associated with the information requirements. 10. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Chief Information Officer, phone

(202)502-8415, fax:

(202)273-0873, e-mail: *michael.miller@ferc.gov* ]. 11. To submit comments concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimates, please send your comments to the contact listed above and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] Phone:

(202)395-4650, fax:

(202)395-7285. V. Environmental Statement 12. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 8 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are actions that involve accounting and financial reporting. 9 The rules proposed here address the need for nonoperating utilities and licensees to continue compliance with the USofA and to meet the reporting requirements of part 141 for so long as they continue to collect amounts pursuant to a Commission-approved tariff or rate schedule, or a Commission order. Therefore, this notice of proposed rulemaking falls within the categorical exemptions provided in the Commission's regulations, and, as a result neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required. 8 *Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act* , Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987). 9 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5), (16); *see also* 18 CFR 380.4(a)(3). VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 13. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 10 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission is not required to make such analyses if a rule would not have such an effect. Because most public utilities and licensees do not fall within the definition of “small entity,” 11 the Commission certifies that this notice of proposed rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 10 5 U.S.C. 601-12. 11 *See* 5 U.S.C. 601(3). VII. Comment Procedures 14. The Commission invites comments on the matters and proposals in this notice, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due February 8, 2007. Reply comments will be due 30 days thereafter. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM07-2-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments. Comments may be filed either in electronic or paper format. 15. Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov.* The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats and commenters may attach additional files with supporting information in certain other file formats. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 16. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters. VIII. Document Availability 17. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register** , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426. 18. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 19. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from our Help Line at

(202)502-8222 or the Public Reference Room at

(202)502-8371 Press 0, TTY

(202)502-8659. E-Mail the Public Reference Room at *public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.* List of Subjects 18 CFR Part 101 Electric power, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts. 18 CFR Part 141 Electric power, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. By direction of the Commission. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend parts 101 and 141, Chapter I, Title 18, *Code of Federal Regulations* , as follows: PART 101—UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS PRESCRIBED FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND LICENSEES SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT 1. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 7651-7615o. 2. Amend Part 101, General Instructions, 1. *Classification of utilities* , to add a new paragraph A.(3) and to revise the first sentence in paragraph B to read as follows: General Instructions *1. Classification of Utilities.* A. * * *

(3)*Nonoperating.* Utilities and licensees formerly designated as Major or Nonmajor that have ceased operation but continue to collect amounts pursuant to a Commission-accepted tariff or rate schedule, or a Commission order. B. This system applies to Major, Nonmajor, and Nonoperating utilities and licensees. * * * PART 141—STATEMENTS AND REPORTS (SCHEDULES) 3. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79; 16 U.S.C. 791a-828c, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. 4. Revise § 141.1(b)(1)(i) to read as follows: § 141.1 FERC Form No. 1, Annual report of Major electric utilities, licensees and others.

(b)*Filing requirements* —(1) *Who must file* —(i) *Generally.* Each Major and each Nonoperating (formerly designated as Major) electric utility (as defined in part 101 of Subchapter C of this chapter) and other entity, *i.e.* , each corporation, person or licensee as defined in section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792 *et seq.* ), including any agency, authority, or other legal entity or instrumentality engaged in generation, transmission, distribution, or sale of electric energy, however produced, throughout the United States and its possessions, having sales or transmission service equal to Major or Nonoperating (formerly designated as Major) as defined above, whether or not the jurisdiction of the Commission is otherwise involved, shall prepare and file electronically with the Commission the FERC Form No. 1 pursuant to the General Instructions set out in that form. 5. Revise § 141.2(b)(1)(i) to read as follows: § 141.2 FERC Form No. 1-F, Annual report for Nonmajor public utilities and licensees.

(b)*Filing requirements* —(1) *Who must file* —(i) *Generally.* Each Nonmajor and each Nonoperating (formerly designated as Nonmajor) public utility and licensee as defined by the Federal Power Act, which is considered Nonmajor as defined in Part 101 of this chapter, shall prepare and file with the Commission an original and conformed copies of FERC Form No. 1-F pursuant to the General Instructions set out in that form. 6. In § 141.400, revise paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(2) introductory text, and (b)(3) introductory text, to read as follows: § 141.400 FERC Form No. 3-Q, Quarterly financial report of electric utilities, licensees, and natural gas companies.

(b)*Filing Requirements* —(1) *Who must file* —(i) *Generally.* Each electric utility and each Nonoperating (formerly designated as Major or Nonmajor) electric utility (as defined in part 101 of subchapter C of this chapter) and other entity, *i.e.* , each corporation, person, or licensee as defined in section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792 *et seq.* ), including any agency or instrumentality engaged in generation, transmission, distribution, or sale of electric energy, however produced, throughout the United States and its possessions, having sales or transmission service, whether or not the jurisdiction of the Commission is otherwise involved, must prepare and file with the Commission FERC Form No. 3-Q pursuant to the General Instructions set out in that form.

(2)Each Major and Nonoperating (formerly designated as Major) (as defined in Part 101 of subchapter C of this chapter) public utility and licensee must file the quarterly financial report form as follows:

(3)Nonmajor and Nonoperating (formerly designated as Nonmajor) public utilities and licensees must file the quarterly financial report form as follows: [FR Doc. E6-22692 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7702] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations

(BFEs)and proposed BFEs modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The comment period is ninety

(90)days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community. ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. National Environmental Policy Act This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. Regulatory Flexibility Act As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Regulatory Classification This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. Executive Order 13132, Federalism This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.;* Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Calhoun County, Alabama and Incorporated Areas Coosa River Talladega County Line None +479 Calhoun County (Unincorporated Areas). Etowah County Line None +510 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Ohatchee Maps are available for inspection at 7801 Alabama Highway 77, Ohatchee, AL 36271. Send comments to The Honorable Joseph K. Roberson, Mayor, Town of Ohatchee, 7801 Alabama Highway 77, Ohatchee, AL 36271. Calhoun County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 507 Francis Street W, Jacksonville, AL 36265. Send comments to The Honorable Rudy Abbott, Chairman, Calhoun County, 1702 Nobel Street, Suite 103, Anniston, AL 36201. De Kalb County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas Big Wills Creek Approximately 7,000 feet downstream of confluence with Little Wills Creek None +672 Town of Collinsville, De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 10,000 feet upstream of confluence with Little Wills Creek None +680 Big Wills Creek Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of confluence with Hammond Branch None +963 Town of Hammondville. Approximately 5,000 feet upstream of confluence with Hammond Branch None +980 Bib Wills Creek Confluence with Davis Gap Creek None +783 De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Appoximately 2,000 feet upstream of confluence with Davis Gap Creek None +786 Davis Gap Creek Confluence with Big Wills Creek None +783 De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of confluence with Big Wills Creek None +786 Ivy Creek Confluence with Town Creek None +1,152 De Kalb County, (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of confluence with Town Creek None +1,154 Little Wills Creek Confluence with Big Wills Creek None +674 Town of Collinsville, De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Church Avenue Crossing None +710 Little Wills Creek Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of SR 68 Crossing None +734 Town of Collinsville. Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of SR 68 Crossing None +738 Little Wills Creek Tributary Approximately 5,000 feet upstream of confluence with Little Wills Creek None +729 Town of Collinsville. Approximately 5,700 feet upstream of confluence with Little Wills Creek None +731 Little Wills Valley Branch Approximately 2,500 feet downstream of 41st Street South Crossing None +839 De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet downstream of 41st Street South Crossing None +843 Phillips Branch Approximately 200 feet upstream of South Sauty Creek None +1,166 City of Rainsville, De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of South Sauty Creek None +1,171 Piney Creek Approximately 7,000 feet downstream of Horton Road Crossing None +1,199 City of Rainsville, Town of Shiloh, De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Confluence with Piney Creek Tributary None +1,215 Town Creek Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of confluence with Bynum Mill Branch None +1,124 City of Rainsville, De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of SR35 Crossing None +1,175 *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. #Depth in feet above ground. +North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Rainsville Maps are available for inspection at 70 McCurdy Avenue, Rainsville, AL 35988. Send comments to The Honorable Donnie Chandler, Mayor, City of Rainsville, P.O. Box 309, Rainsville, AL 35986. Town of Collinsville Maps are available for inspection at 39 Post Office Street, Collinsville, AL 35961. Send comments to The Honorable Jimmy Carter, Mayor, Town of Collinsville, P.O. Box N, Collinsville, AL 35961. Town of Hammondville Maps are available for inspection at 37699 U.S. Highway 11, Hammondville, AL 35989. Send comments to The Honorable Larry Watson, Mayor, Town of Hammondville, P.O. Box 329, Valley Head, AL 35989. Town of Shiloh Maps are available for inspection at 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Payne, AL 35967. Send comments to The Honorable Charles D. Liles, Mayor, Town of Shiloh, P.O. Box 924, Rainsville, AL 35986. De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Payne, AL 35967. Send comments to The Honorable Sid Holcomb, Chairman, DeKalb County, 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Payne, AL 35967. Escambia County, Alabama and Incorporated Areas Big Escambia Creek U.S. 29 and U.S. 31 Crossing None +73 Escambia County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 8,000 feet upstream of U.S. 9 and U.S. 31 Crossing None +78 Burnt Corn Approximately 6,200 feet upstream of confluence with Murder Creek None +88 Escambia County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of confluence with Little Juniper Creek None +109 Conecuh River Approximately 6,000 feet upstream of confluence with Murder Creek None +79 Town of Riverview, Escambia County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 31,000 feet upstream of confluence with Murder Creek None +86 Franklin Mill Creek Approximately 4,000 feet upstream of confluence with Murder Creek None +69 Escambia County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,000 feet upstream of Booth Boulevard Crossing None +91 King Branch Confluence with Murder Creek None +90 Escambia County (Unincorporated Areas). Martin Luther King Drive Crossing None +109 Mantle Branch Confluence with Conecuh River None +82 Escambia County (Unincorporated Areas). Forrest Avenue (U.S. 29) Crossing None +82 Murder Creek Approximately 11,000 feet upstream of confluence with Conecuh River None +81 Escambia County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 10,000 feet upstream of confluence with King Branch None +95 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Riverview Maps are available for inspection at 4190 Highway 41, Brewton, AL 36426. Send comments to The Honorable Carl O. Smith, Mayor, Town of Riverview, PO Box 2368, Riverview, AL 36427. Escambia County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 314 Belleville Avenue, Brewton, AL 36426. Send comments to The Honorable Larry W. White, Chairman, Escambia County Commission, P.O. Box 848, Brewton, AL 36427. Etowah County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas Coosa River St. Clair County Line None +511 City of Southside. Approximately 25,000 feet upstream of SR 77 Crossing None +516 Coosa River Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of confluence with Big Cove Creek None +524 Town of Hokes Bluff. Approximately 35,000 feet upstream of confluence with Big Cove Creek None +529 Greenway Creek Hooke Street Crossing None +523 City of Gadsden. Springfield Avenue Crossing None +530 Little Cove Creek U.S. 278 Crossing None +524 Town of Hokes Bluff. Approximately 6,000 feet upstream of U.S. 278 Crossing None +524 Locust Fork of Black Warrior River Approximately 7,500 feet downstream of Payne Branch None +821 Town of Walnut Grove, Etowah County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Payne Branch None +827 Payne Branch Confluence with Locust Fork of Black Warrior River None +824 Town of Walnut Grove. Ashville Road Crossing None +836 Town Creek Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of Tuscaloosa Avenue Crossing None +544 City of Gadsden, Etowah County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,400 feet upstream of Tuscaloosa Avenue Crossing None +554 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Gadsden Maps are available for inspection at 90 Broad Street, Gadsden, AL 35901. Send comments to The Honorable Steve Means, Mayor, City of Gadsden, 90 Broad Street, Gadsden, AL 35901. City of Southside Maps are available for inspection at 2255 Highway 77, Southside, AL 35907. Send comments to The Honorable Wally Burns, Mayor, City of Southside, 2255 Highway 77, Southside, AL 35907. Town of Hokes Bluff Maps are available for inspection at 3301 Alford Bend Road, Hokes Bluff, AL 35903. Send comments to The Honorable Tim Langdale, Mayor, Town of Hokes Bluff, 3301 Alford Bend Road, Hokes Bluff, AL 35903. Town of Walnut Grove Maps are available for inspection at 4012 Gadsden-Blountsville Rd., Walnut Grove, AL 35990. Send comments to The Honorable Autry Works, Mayor, Town of Walnut Grove, 4012 Gadsden-Blountsville Road, Walnut Grove, AL 35990. Etowah County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 800 Forrest Avenue, Gadsden, AL 35901. Send comments to The Honorable Tim N. Choate, Chairman, Etowah County Commission, 800 Forrest Avenue, Gadsden, AL 35901. Marshall County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas Guntersville Lake Approximately 5,000 feet downstream of SR 69 Crossing None +596 City of Guntersville, Marshall County (Unincorporated Areas). SR 69 Crossing None +596 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Guntersville Maps are available for inspection at 341 Gunter Avenue, Guntersville, AL 35976. Send comments to The Honorable Robert Henbree, Mayor, City of Guntersville, 341 Gunter Avenue, Guntersville, AL 35976. Marshall County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 424 Blount Avenue, Guntersville, AL 35976. Send comments to The Honorable Billy Cannon, Chairman, Marshall County Commission, 424 Blount Avenue, Guntersville, AL 35976. Talladega County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas Blue Eye Creek Approximately 2,000 feet downstream of McLain Avenue Crossing None +482 Talladega County (Unincorporated Areas) Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of McLain Avenue Crossing None +486 Coosa River Approximately 13,000 feet downstream of confluence with Talladega Creek None +413 Talladega County (Unincorporated Areas) Approximately 3,000 feet downstream of confluence with Talladega Creek None +414 Coosa River Shelby County Line None +418 Town of Lincoln, Talladega County (Unincorporated Areas). Calhoun County Line None +479 Crooked Creek Approximately 4,500 feet downstream of 3rd Street Crossing None +521 Talladega County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet downstream of 3rd Street crossing None +526 Griffin Branch Approximately 7,800 feet downstream of Bon Air Road Crossing None +421 City of Childersburg, Town of Bon Air, Talladega County (Unincorporated Areas). U.S. Highway 280 Crossing None +469 Shirtee Creek Odena Road Crossing None +465 Talladega County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of Odena Road Crossing None +471 Talladega Creek Confluence with Coosa River None +417 Talladega County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 8,000 feet upstream of confluence with Coosa River None +418 Upper Shirtee Creek Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Old Birmingham Highway Crossing None +516 Talladega County (Unincorporated Areas). Old Birmingham Highway Crossing None +518 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Childersburg Maps are available for inspection at 118 Sixth Avenue, SW, Childersburg, AL 35044. Send comments to The Honorable B. J. Meeks, Mayor, City of Childersburg, 118 Sixth Avenue, SW, Childersburg, AL 35044. Town of Bon Air Maps are available for inspection at 500 Institute Lane, Talladega, AL 35161. Send comments to The Honorable Pam Pilketon, Mayor, Town of Bon Air, P.O. Box 117, Bon Air, AL 35032. Town of Lincoln Maps are available for inspection at 33 Complex Drive, Linclon, AL 35096. Send comments to The Honorable Carroll L. Watson, Mayor, City of Lincoln, 33 Complex Drive, Lincoln, AL 35096. Talladega County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 500 Institute Lane, Talladega, AL 35161. Send comments to The Honorable Jimmy Roberson, Chairman, County Commission of Talladega, 1 Courthouse Square, Talladega, AL 35161. Columbia County, Florida and Incorporated Areas Cannon Creek Approximately 450 feet upstream of the confluence with Clay Hole Creek None +70 Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 650 feet upstream of Quail Heights Boulevard None +136 Montgomery Outlet Stream Approximately 900 feet upstream of the confluence with Alligator Lake *104 +104 City of Lake City. At the confluence with Lake Montgomery *131 +131 Lake Montgomery Entire shoreline *131.3 +130.8 City of Lake City. Rose Creek Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of the confluence with Clay Hole Creek None +50 Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 600 feet upstream of SW Tustennugee Avenue None +88 Ponding Area 1 An approximately 77 acre area at the intersection of Upchurch Road and Prairie Road None +91.3 Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas). Ponding Area 2 An approximately 10 acre area at the intersection of Troy Road and Callanan Road None +93.6 Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas). Ponding Area 3a An approximately 25 acre area at the intersection of County Road 252 and Holly Drive None +103.2 Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas). Ponding Area 3b An approximately 5 acre area at the intersection of Pine Lane and Forest Avenue None +107.7 Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas) Ponding Area 3c An approximately 5 acre area just west of Cherokee Road None +104.2 Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas). Ponding Area 3d An approximately 11 acre area just east of Cherokee Road None +104.5 Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas). Ponding Area 3e An approximately 5 acre area just east of Johnathan Road None +105.3 Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas). * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the Columbia County Courthouse, 173 Northeast Hernando Avenue, Lake City, Florida. Send comments to Mr. Dale Williams, Columbia County Manager, P.O. Box 1529, Lake City, Florida 32056-1529. City of Lake City Maps are available for inspection at the Lake City City Hall, 205 North Marion Avenue, Lake City, Florida. Send comments to Mr. Grayson Cason, Lake City City Manager, 205 North Marion Avenue, Lake City, Florida 32055. Gulf County, Florida and Incorporated Areas Five Acre Farm Creek East Approximately 800 feet downstream of County Route 381 None +23 Gulf County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of County Route 381 None +26 Five Acre Farm Creek West Approximately 1.6 miles downstream of State Route 71 None +25 Gulf County (Unincorporated Areas). Just upstream of State Route 71 None +26 Stone Mill Creek Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of State Route 71 None +30 Gulf County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Wewahitchka. Approximately 2.8 miles upstream of State Route 71 None +31 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Gulf County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the Gulf County Courthouse, 1000 Cecil G. Costin, Sr. Boulevard, Room 302, Port St. Joe, Florida. Send comments to Mr. Carmen L. McLemore, Chairman of the Gulf County Board of Commissioners, 1000 Cecil G. Costin, Sr. Boulevard, Port St. Joe, Florida 32456. City of Wewahitchka Maps are available for inspection at the Wewahitchka City Hall, 109 South 2nd Street, Wewahitchka, Florida. Send comments to Mr. Donald Minchew, Wewahitchka City Manager, 109 South 2nd Street, Wewahitchka, Florida 32465. Seminole County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas Deep Lake None +55 Seminole County (Unincorporated Areas) Lake Pickett None +58 Seminole County (Unincorporated Areas) * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Seminole County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Seminole County Manager, 1101 East First Street, Sanford, FL 32771. Send comments to Mr. Don Fisher, County Manager, Seminole County Services Building, 1101 East First Street, Sanford, FL 32771. Suwannee County, Florida and Incorporated Areas Closed Basin Area 1A An area located approximately 0.8 mile southwest of the intersection of 104th Street and County Road 49 None +91 Suwannee County (Unincorporated Areas) Closed Basin Area 1B An area located approximately 460 feet east of the intersection of 112th Street and 109th Drive None +100 Suwannee County (Unincorporated Areas). Closed Basin Area 1C An area located approximately 0.5 mile west of the intersection of 112th Street and County Road 49 None +91 Suwannee County (Unincorporated Areas). Closed Basin Area 1D An area located approximately 900 feet east of the intersection of 112th Street and County Road 49 None +115 Suwannee County (Unincorporated Areas). Closed Basin Area 1E An area located approximately 0.4 mile east of the intersection of 112th Street and County Road 49 None +125 Suwannee County (Unincorporated Areas). Closed Basin Area 1F An area located approximately 550 feet southeast of the intersection of 114th Terrace and County Road 49 None +104 Suwannee County (Unincorporated Areas). Closed Basin Area 2A An area located approximately 1,250 feet southeast of the intersection of 99th Lane and 146th Street None +99 Suwannee County (Unincorporated Areas). Closed Basin Area 2B An area located approximately 0.25 mile northeast of the intersection of 99th Lane and 146th Street None +98 Suwannee County (Unincorporated Areas). Closed Basin Area 2C An area located approximately 0.4 mile east of the intersection of 99th Lane and 146th Street None +93 Suwannee County (Unincorporated Areas). Closed Basin Area 2D An area located approximately 0.6 mile southeast of the intersection of 99th Lane and 146th Street None +93 Suwannee County (Unincorporated Areas). Closed Basin Area 2E An area located approximately 0.7 mile northeast of the intersection of 99th Lane and 146th Street None +104 Suwannee County (Unincorporated Areas). * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Suwannee County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the Suwannee County Coordinator's Office, Suwannee County Courthouse, 200 South Ohio/MLK Jr. Avenue, Live Oak, Florida. Send comments to Mr. John Wooley, Suwannee County Coordinator, 224 Pine Avenue, Live Oak, Florida 32064. Union County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas Akins Creek/Cooks Cove Branch At confluence with Nottely River (Upper Reach) None *1,829 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,690 feet upstream of Town Mountain Road None *1,903 Anderson Creek At confluence with Coosa Creek None *1,805 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,660 feet upstream of the confluence with Coosa Creek None *2,015 Arkaqua Creek At confluence with Nottely River (Upper Reach) None *1,832 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 11,170 feet upstream of Lower Trackrock Road None *2,015 Barnes Creek At confluence with Ivylog Creek None *1,790 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Just upstream of Ivylog Road None *1,810 Brasstown Creek Approximately 1,100 feet downstream of Young Harris Highway None *1,889 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,500 feet upstream of Young Harris Highway None *1,931 Butternut Creek At confluence with Nottely River (Upper Reach) *1,786 *1,783 City of Blairsville, Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 8,210 feet upstream of Memory Gardens Drive None *1,950 Conley Creek Approximately 2,750 feet downstream of Murphy Highway None *1,788 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 70 feet upstream of Ivylog Road None *1,852 Coosa Creek Approximately 90 feet downstream of Blue Ridge Highway None *1,802 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). At confluence of East and West Forks Coosa Creek None *1,865 Dooley Creek Approximately 130 feet downstream of John Smith Road West None *1,653 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 855 feet upstream of R.T. Lance Road None *1,784 East Fork Coosa Creek At confluence with Coosa Creek None *1,865 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,030 feet upstream of Crawley Gap Road None *1,950 Ivylog Creek Approximately 100 feet downstream of the confluence of Barnes Creek None *1,789 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,280 feet upstream of Gumlog Road None *1,899 Jones Creek At confluence with Youngcane Creek None *1,877 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 360 feet upstream of R Way Road None *1,955 Kiutuestia Creek Approximately 50 feet downstream of Kiutuestia Creek Road None *1,783 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Just downstream of Pleasant Grove Road None *1,884 Little Youngcane Creek At confluence with Youngcane Creek None *1,877 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 50 feet upstream of Blue Ridge Highway None *1,935 Nottely Lake Entire Shoreline None *1,783 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Nottely River (Lower Reach) Approximately 3,465 feet downstream of John Smith Road West None *1,600 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 8,180 feet upstream of John Smith Road West None *1,615 Nottely River (Upper Reach) Approximately 800 feet upstream of State Highway 515 None *1,782 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 50 feet upstream of Hatchet Creek Road None *2,021 Stink Creek At confluence with Nottely River (Upper Reach) None *1,889 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 200 feet upstream of Wolfstake Road East None *2,007 Suches Creek At confluence with Toccoa River None *2,107 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 6,520 feet upstream of Old Robert Harkins Drive None *2,141 Toccoa River Approximately 11,960 feet downstream of Parker Road None *2,407 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,220 feet upstream of Gooch Road South None *2,156 Town Creek At confluence with Nottely River (Upper Reach) *1,868 *1,869 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 275 feet upstream of Fain Branch Road None *1,994 Trackrock Branch At confluence with Arkaqua Creek None *1,890 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,900 feet upstream of the confluence with Arkaqua Creek None *1,920 West Fork Coosa Creek/Hicks Gap Branch At confluence with Coosa Creek None *1,865 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 70 feet upstream of Mulky Gap Road None *1,945 Wolf Creek At confluence with Nottely River (Upper Reach) *1,865 *1,866 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,375 feet upstream of Meadow Drive None *1,913 Youngcane Creek Approximately 225 feet downstream of State Highway 515 None *1,817 Union County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,420 feet upstream of Burnette Road None *1,984 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Blairsville Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, City Hall, Blairsville, Georgia 30514. Send comments to The Honorable Ray E. Potts, Mayor, City of Blairsville, City Hall, P.O. Box 307, Blairsville, Georgia 30514. Union County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, 114 Courthouse Street, Blairsville, Georgia 30512. Send comments to Mr. Lamar Paris, Sole Commissioner, Union County, County Commissioner's Office, 114 Courthouse Street, Blairsville, Georgia 30512. Fall River County, South Dakota, and Incorporated Areas Fall River Confluence with Cheyenne River None +3,046 The City of Hot Springs, Fall River County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.25 miles upstream of Battle Mountain Avenue +3,475 +3,476 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Fall River County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at: County Courthouse, 906 North River Street, Hot Springs, South Dakota. Send comments to: Mr. Glen Reaser, Chairman, Fall River County Commissioners, 906 North River Street, Hot Springs, South Dakota, 57747. City of Hot Springs Maps are available for inspection at: City Hall, 303 North River Street, Hot Springs, South Dakota. Send comments to: The Honorable Carl Oberlitner, Mayor, City of Hot Springs, 303 North River Street, Hot Springs, South Dakota, 57747. Cumberland County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Obed River At Interstate Highway 40 None +1,674 Cumberland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Crossville. At confluence with Obed Creek None +1,702 Obed Creek At confluence with Obed River None +1,702 City of Crossville. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of confluence with Town Branch None +1,736 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Cumberland County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at: Cumberland County, 2 North Main Street, Suite 203, Crossville, TN 38555. Send comments to the Honorable Brock Hill, Mayor, Cumberland County, 2 North Main Street, Suite 203, Crossville, TN 38555. City of Crossville Maps are available for inspection at: Cumberland County EOC, 42 Southbend Drive, Crossville, TN 38555. Send comments to the Honorable J.H. Graham, Mayor, City of Crossville, 99 Municipal Avenue, Crossville, TN 38555. Fayette County Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Cane Creek At the confluence of Little Cypress Creek *278 +278 Fayette County, (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Gallaway. Approximately 7,000 feet upstream of Centerpoint Drive None +297 Cane Creek Tributary At the confluence with Cane Creek *285 +284 Town of Gallaway. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Highway 70 *297 +295 Cypress Creek Just upstream of Highway 64 *297 +296 Fayette County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of State Highway 196 None +310 Grays Creek Approximately 1,980 feet southwest of the intersection of Seward Drive and Jacobs Way None +343 Fayette County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,980 feet southwest of the intersection of Seward Drive and Walnut Hill Way None +359 North Fork Wolf River At the confluence with Wolf River *340 +339 Fayette County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 11,400 feet upstream of State Highway 76 *361 +361 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Gallaway Maps are available for inspection at 607 Watson Drive, Gallaway, TN 38036. Send comments to The Honorable Elna Watson, Mayor, 607 Watson Drive, Gallaway, TN 38036. Fayette County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 16265 Highway 64, Suite 4, Somerville, TN 38068. Send comments to The Honorable Rhea Taylor, Mayor, 10395 North Main Street, Somerville, TN 38068. Guadalupe County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas Cibolo Creek Approximately 7,500 feet downstream from intersection with I-35 *735 +740 City of Selma. Approximately 4,800 feet upstream from intersection with I-35 *764 +763 Dietz Creek Approximately 2,000 feet downstream of I-35 *749 +751 City of Selma. Approximately 4,000 feet upstream from I-35 None +767 Guadalupe River Approximately 2,500 feet upstream from Confluence with Long Creek *550 +558 City of New Braunfels. At East County Line Road *587 +598 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of New Braunfels Maps are available for inspection at 424 South Castell, New Braunfels, TX 78130. Send comments to The Honorable Bruce Boyer, Mayor, City of Braunfels, 424 South Castell, New Braunfels, TX 78130. City of Selma Maps are available for inspection at 9375 Corporate Dr., Selma, TX 78154. Send comments to The Honorable James Parma, Mayor, City of Selma, 9375 Corporate Dr., Schertz, TX 78154. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: December 22, 2006. David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-133 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P 72 5 Tuesday, January 9, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-485-803] Notice of Extension of Final Results of the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Romania AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or John Drury, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3362 or

(202)482-0195, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of this administrative review of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“cut-to-length plate”) from Romania. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission,* 71 FR 53377 (September 11, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). In the *Preliminary Results* we stated that we would make our final determination for the antidumping duty review no later than 120 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results ( *i.e.,* January 9, 2007). Extension of Time Limit for Final Results The Department is extending the time limit for the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cut-to-length plate from Romania. This review covers the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time specified, the administering authority may extend the 120-day period, following the date of publication of the preliminary results, to issue its final results by an additional 60 days. Due to the complexity of issues raised in this review segment, including the selection of date of sale for respondent's U.S. sales and the calculation of inland freight to port expenses, the completion of the final results within the 120-day period is not practicable. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by an additional 30 days until no later than February 8, 2007. Dated: December 28, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-55 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-848] Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin C. Begnal or Scot Fullerton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1442 or

(202)482-1386, respectively. Background On October 10, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China for the period September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews,* 71 FR 59432 (October 10, 2006) (“Preliminary Results”). The final results of these reviews are currently due by February 7, 2007. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and section 351.213(h)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department shall issue final results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 120 days after the date on which the notice of preliminary results is published in the **Federal Register** . However, if the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the specified time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend this time period to 180 days. The Department has determined that completion of the final results of the aligned administrative and new shipper reviews within the 120-day period is impracticable. The Department requires additional time to address the concerns of the interested parties as raised in their November 9, 2006, case briefs, and November 14, 2006, rebuttal briefs. Therefore, the Department is fully extending the time limit for completion of these final results to April 8, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. However, because April 8, 2007, falls on a Sunday, the final results will be due no later than, April 9, 2007, the next business day. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 27, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-44 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-891] Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review and a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof (hand trucks) from the People's Republic of China

(PRC)covering the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Nichole Zink, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3874 or

(202)482-0049, respectively. Background On December 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,* 70 FR 72109 (Dec. 1, 2005). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), on December 27, 2005, the Department received a request to conduct both an administrative review and a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order from Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware), a producer/exporter of subject merchandise in the PRC. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on December 30, 2005, the petitioners, Gleason Industrial Products, Inc. and Precision Products, Inc., requested that the Department conduct an administrative review for the following producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise: Qingdao Huatian Hand Truck Co., Ltd. (Huatian); Qingdao Future Tool, Inc. (Future Tool); Qingdao Taifa Group Co. Ltd./Qindao Yinzhu Hang Truck Factory (collectively, “Taifa”); True Potential Co., Ltd. (True Potential); and Shandong Machinery I&E Group Corp. (Shandong Machinery). Also on December 30, 2005, the Department received a request to conduct an administrative review from Aulita Quindao Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Aulita), a producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On January 3, 2006, Clipper Products, Inc., a U.S. importer of the subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Forecarry Corp. (Forecarry), an exporter of subject merchandise located in a third country, and its PRC supplier, Formost Plastics & Metalworks (Jiaxing) Co., Ltd. (Formost). On February 1, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of hand trucks from the PRC for the period May 24, 2004, through November 30, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part,* 71 FR 5241 (Feb. 1, 2006). On February 3, 2006, the Department also published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the initiation of the new shipper review of Since Hardware. *See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Review,* 71 FR 5810 (Feb. 3, 2006). On February 8, 2006, we issued a new shipper questionnaire to Since Hardware. We received Since Hardware's response to Section A of this questionnaire on February 23, 2006. In February 2006 we issued quantity and value questionnaires to Aulita, Forecarry, Formost, Future Tool, Huatian, Shandong Machinery, True Potential, and Taifa. We received responses to these questionnaires between February 22 and March 3, 2006, from all companies except Aulita and Shandong Machinery. On February 13, 2006, Since Hardware stated that it did not object to a rescission of its requested administrative review, so long as its sale was examined in the context of the new shipper review. *See* the “Partial Rescission of Administrative Review” section of this notice, below, for further discussion. On February 15, 2006, we issued letters to all parties in both the administrative review and the new shipper review informing them of the correct period of review (POR). The POR for this segment of the proceeding is December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. On February 24, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** a correction to the POR for the administrative review. **See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,* 71 FR 9519 (Feb. 24, 2006). On February 28, 2006, Aulita withdrew its request for an administrative review within the time limits specified under 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). *See* the “Partial Rescission of Administrative Review” section of this notice, below, for further discussion. On March 3, 2006, we issued a letter to Shandong Machinery providing a second opportunity to respond to the Department's request for quantity and value information. Shandong Machinery did not respond to the Department's March 3, 2006, letter. *See* the “Facts Available” section of this notice, below, for further discussion. On March 17, 2006, the Department determined that it was not practicable to examine individually all of the companies covered by the 2004-2005 administrative review, and thus it limited its examination to the largest producers/exporters that could reasonably be reviewed, pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Therefore, on this date the Department selected Taifa as the sole respondent required to submit a full questionnaire response in the administrative review. *See* the March 17, 2006, memorandum from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Office Director, to Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, entitled “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents.” On March 20, 2006, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Taifa. Also on March 20, 2006, we issued a separate-rate questionnaire ( *i.e.* , section A of the antidumping duty questionnaire) to Future Tool, Huatian, and True Potential. We did not issue separate-rate questionnaires to Forecarry or Formost, because the former company is a third-country reseller (and thus it automatically qualifies for a separate rate; *see* the “Separate Rates” section, below, for further discussion) and the latter company informed the Department in its response to the quantity and value questionnaire that it had no exports to the United States to unaffiliated customers during the POR. Also on March 20, 2006, we issued a section A supplemental questionnaire to Since Hardware. On March 31, 2006, the Department invited interested parties to comment on surrogate country selection and to provide publicly available information for valuing the factors of production

(FOPs)in the new shipper review. Also on March 31, 2006, we received Since Hardware's responses to sections C and D of the Department's questionnaire. On April 10, 2006, we received responses to section A of the questionnaire from Future Tool, Huatian, and True Potential, as well as a response from Since Hardware to the supplemental section A questionnaire. On April 20, 2006, we issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding sections A, C, and D to Since Hardware. On May 1, 2006, Since Hardware agreed to waive the time limits applicable to the new shipper review and to permit the Department to conduct the new shipper review concurrently with the administrative review. On May 2, 2006, the petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of Taifa, the company chosen as the mandatory respondent, and Huatian. *See* the “Partial Rescission of Administrative Review” section of this notice, below, for further discussion. On May 4, 2006, we received a response from Since Hardware to the April 20, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On May 9, 2006, the Department reconsidered its decision to select only one company to provide a full questionnaire response in this review, and named the remaining three participating respondents as mandatory respondents. *See* the May 9, 2006, memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias entitled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Revised Selection of Respondents.” As a result, on this date, we issued sections A, C, and D of the antidumping duty questionnaire to Forecarry and sections C and D of the questionnaire to Future Tool and True Potential. On May 30, 2006, we received Forecarry's response to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On May 31, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice indicating that it would conduct the new shipper review of Since Hardware concurrently with the 2004-2005 administrative review. *See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Postponement of Time Limits for New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review in Conjunction with Administrative Review,* 71 FR 30867 (May 31, 2006). On June 8 and 28, 2006, respectively, we received Forecarry's responses to sections C and D of the Department's questionnaire. On June 13 and June 23, 2006, we issued additional supplemental questionnaires to Since Hardware. On June 29, 2006, we received True Potential's response to sections C and D of the Department's questionnaire. Future Tool did not submit a response to sections C and D of the Department's questionnaire. *See* the “Facts Available” section of this notice, below, for further discussion. On June 29, 2006, the Department solicited comments on surrogate country selection and publicly available information to value FOPs in the administrative review. On June 30 and July 10, 2006, respectively, we received responses from Since Hardware to the Department's June 13 and 23, 2006, supplemental questionnaires. From July 17 through 21, 2006, the Department conducted verification of the responses of Since Hardware at its offices in the PRC. On August 3, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of extension of time limits for the preliminary results of both the administrative and new shipper reviews until no later than January 2, 2007. *See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China; Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review,* 71 FR 44018 (Aug. 3, 2006). On August 4, 2006, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to True Potential regarding its section A and C responses. On August 8, 2006, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Forecarry regarding its section A through D responses. On August 18, 2006, we received True Potential's response to the section A and C supplemental questionnaire. On August 24, 2006, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to True Potential regarding its section D response. We received True Potential's response to this questionnaire on September 5, 2006. On September 15, 2006, we received Forecarry's response to the section A through D supplemental questionnaire. Also on September 15, 2006, the petitioners, Since Hardware, and True Potential submitted publicly available information for valuing the FOPs in both the administrative and new shipper reviews. On October 19, 2006, we issued additional supplemental questionnaires regarding section D to Forecarry and True Potential. On October 24, 2006, we issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to Forecarry. On November 16, 2006, we received responses to these supplemental questionnaires from Forecarry and True Potential. On December 19, 2006, we issued a final supplemental questionnaire to Forecarry regarding outstanding deficiencies in its section D response. Forecarry's response to this questionnaire is due to the Department no later than January 3, 2007. Period of Review The POR covers December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. Scope of Order The product covered by this order consists of hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof. A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load. That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS), although they may also be imported under heading 8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, or any combination thereof, are typically imported under heading 8716.90.50.60 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope is dispositive. Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular material measuring less than 5/8 inch in diameter; hand trucks that use motorized operations either to move the hand truck from one location to the next or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand truck; vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary must rescind an administrative review if a party requesting a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. As noted above, on April 28, 2006, Aulita timely withdrew its request for an administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). In addition, on May 2, 2006, the petitioners withdrew their requests for an administrative review of Huatian and Taifa, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Therefore, because no other interested party requested a review of these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding the administrative review of Aulita, Huatian, and Taifa for the POR. Finally, as noted in the “Background” section of this notice, above, Since Hardware stated on February 13, 2006, that it did not object to the rescission of its requested administrative review, so long as its sale was examined in the context of the new shipper review. Therefore, because we are examining Since Hardware's sale in the context of the new shipper review, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the administrative review for Since Hardware for the POR. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification of the sales and FOP information provided by Since Hardware. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are set forth in the Since Hardware Verification Report. *See* the October 5, 2006, memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood and Nichole Zink to James Maeder entitled, “Verification of Sales and Factors Responses of Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. in the New Shipper Review of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China” (Since Hardware Verification Report) for further discussion. Bona Fide Sale Analysis—Since Hardware For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Since Hardware's reported U.S. sale during the POR is a *bona fide* sale, as required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on the totality of the facts on the record. Specifically, we find that the price reported for Since Hardware's hand truck sale was similar to the average unit value of U.S. imports of comparable hand trucks and certain parts thereof from the PRC during the POR. We also find that the quantity of the sale was within the range of shipment sizes of comparable goods imported from the PRC during the POR. Furthermore, Since Hardware provided documentation on a post-POR order at verification. The price of the post-POR order and the sale under review are identical. *See* the Since Hardware Verification Report at pages 9, 10, and Verification Exhibit 18. Finally, we looked to see whether the importer involved in this transaction is an actual commercial entity, and we found no reason to doubt the legitimacy of either the importing party or its agents involved in this new shipper review. *See* the December 29, 2006, memorandum to James Maeder from Elizabeth Eastwood and Nichole Zink entitled, “Analysis of Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.'s *Bona Fides* As A New Shipper,” for further discussion of our price and quantity analysis. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Department preliminarily finds that Since Hardware's sole U.S. sale during the POR was a *bona fide* commercial transaction. Non-Market Economy Country Status In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy

(NME)country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part* , 69 FR 70638 (Dec. 7, 2004). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are:

(1)At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and

(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department has determined that Egypt, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See* the February 9, 2006, memoranda from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, Office 2, entitled, “New Shipper Review of Hand Trucks from the People's Republic of China (PRC); Request for a List of Surrogate Countries” and “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Hand Trucks from the People's Republic of China (PRC); Request for a List of Surrogate Countries.” Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are significant producers of identical or comparable merchandise. For PRC cases, the primary surrogate country has often been India if it is a significant producer of identical or comparable merchandise. In this case, based on publicly available information placed on the record ( *e.g.* , world production data), India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we have considered India the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. *See* the December 12, 2006, memorandum from Jill Pollack to the file entitled, “2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,” for further discussion. Affiliation Section 771(33) of the Act states that the Department considers the following entities to be affiliated:

(a)Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants;

(b)any officer or director of an organization and such organization;

(c)partners;

(d)employer and employee;

(e)any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization;

(f)two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, any person; and

(g)any person who controls any other person and such other person. For purposes of affiliation, section 771(33) of the Act states that a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person. In order to find affiliation between companies, the Department must find that at least one of the criteria listed above is applicable to the respondents. To the extent that the affiliation provisions in section 771(33) of the Act do not conflict with the Department's application of separate rates and the statutory NME provisions in section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will determine that exporters and/or producers are affiliated if the facts of the case support such a finding. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Sixth New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 10410, 10413 (Mar. 5, 2004) ( *Mushrooms* ), unchanged in *Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 54361 (Sept. 14, 2005). Following these guidelines, we preliminarily determine that Forecarry and Formost are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. We also preliminarily determine that Forecarry and Formost should be assigned a single dumping margin for the purposes of this antidumping duty administrative review. Because the details of our affiliation analysis are proprietary in nature, we are unable to discuss them in this notice. Therefore, for further discussion of this issue, see the December 29, 2006, memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, from Jill Pollack, Senior Analyst, entitled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Affiliation of Forecarry Corporation and Formost Plastics & Metalworks (Jianxing) Co., Ltd.” Facts Available A. Application of Facts Available In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that the use of facts available is appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for the following producers/exporters: Forecarry, Future Tool, Shandong Machinery, and the PRC-wide entity. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party:

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

(2)fails to provide information in a timely manner or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c) and

(e)of the Act;

(3)significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping statute; or

(4)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to the requirements listed in section 782(e)(1-5) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. 1. Forecarry/Formost As noted above, the Department selected Forecarry as a mandatory respondent in this administrative review on May 9, 2006, and at that time we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to it. We received Forecarry's responses to the questionnaire on May 30, June 8, and June 28, 2006. After analyzing these responses, we found that the company's FOP database was not reliable because it was not based on the books and records of the company's PRC supplier, Formost. Rather, this response was based primarily on estimated data and/or observed quantities that were unaccompanied by supporting calculation worksheets. Although we informed Forecarry of this deficiency and provided it several opportunities to correct it, as explained below, Forecarry failed to do so prior to the preliminary results. We note that, in its response to the second supplemental on this topic, Forecarry claimed that it revised its methodology to base its FOPs on Formost's books and records. However, Forecarry did not provide supporting documentation that linked the reported data to the amounts recorded in Formost's accounting system. Forecarry merely provided POR invoices for certain material and energy factors, as well as partially translated pages from Formost's inventory, production, and labor records, but failed to explain how these documents support its reported FOPs. The deficiencies in Forecarry's responses are discussed in more detail below. Throughout the course of this administrative review, we have requested that Forecarry reconcile its reported FOPs to the amounts recorded in Formost's normal books and records. The first request is contained in Appendix V of the May 9 questionnaire, where the Department requested that Forecarry provide: Worksheets that illustrate how the costs reported on the audited financial statements (or, if your company does not have audited financial statements, on the tax filing) reconcile to the general ledger or trial balance and to the cost accounting system ( *i.e.* , the source used to derive the reported input quantities, *e.g.* , materials sub-ledgers, production records, and inventory records). On the worksheets, identify the source documents for all major items shown and cross-reference the worksheets where appropriate ( *i.e.* , link between worksheets). If your company does not have a cost accounting system, reconcile the general ledger or trial balance to the books and records normally kept by the company which were used to derive the reported quantity of each input consumed in the production of merchandise covered by the scope of the antidumping investigation/order. *See* the Antidumping Duty Questionnaire at Appendix V (issued to Forecarry on May 9, 2006). Forecarry did not submit the reconciliation of its reported FOPs in its original questionnaire response. On August 8, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Forecarry that instructed Forecarry to: Ensure that, in this and all future responses, you submit all worksheets with narrative responses that will allow the Department to follow the flow of the worksheet and any adjustments necessary to calculate the submitted FOPs. Further, ensure that your worksheets demonstrate how the data recorded in Formost's accounting and production records were adjusted in order to derive the amount reported. In its September 15, 2006, response to the August 8 supplemental questionnaire, Forecarry stated that it reported the weight of hand truck inputs based on the “actual weight of a production sample of each part.” However, Forecarry did not provide any worksheets demonstrating how the reported factors tied to the company's books and records, as requested. On October 19, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Forecarry, instructing Forecarry to provide source documentation to support its reported FOPs and to provide the cost reconciliation requested in Appendix V of the Department's original questionnaire. *See* the October 19, 2006, letter to Forecarry at pages 1 and 2 of Attachment I. In response to the Department's second request for the FOPs reconciliation, Forecarry provided a worksheet that attempts to show a comparison between the weight of steel and aluminum tubing recorded as manufacturing costs, based on inventory records, to the weight recorded in the FOP database submitted to the Department, which was based on the actual weight of the various finished parts made from these materials. *See* Forecarry's November 16, 2006, supplemental response at page 4 and Exhibit 2. Forecarry also provided additional worksheets in response to the Department's request for a cost of production reconciliation. *See* Forecarry's November 16 supplemental response at Exhibit 1. However, Forecarry did not demonstrate how any of the records or worksheets provided in its November 16 response tie to Formost's normal books and records. As a result, the cost reconciliation was incomplete. Further, Forecarry did not explain how any of the reported FOPs were calculated or show how the reported FOPs tie to Formost's inventory or production records. Regarding labor, we note in both its June 28, 2006, section D response and its September 15, 2006, supplemental response that Forecarry stated that Formost's reported labor factors were based on manager estimates of the labor required to produce the subject merchandise. In its September 15, 2006, response, Forecarry stated that there was no source documentation to support these managers' estimates. *See* Forecarry's September 15, 2006, supplemental response at page 14. In the October 19, 2006, supplemental questionnaire, the Department required Forecarry to “provide documentation to support these estimates ( *e.g.* , documents identifying the employees that work in a particular workshop, documents showing the number of hours worked within a specific amount of time ( *e.g.* , week or month) by employees for that particular workshop, documents submitted to Chinese authorities, or payment documentation).” *See* the Department's October 19, 2006, letter to Forecarry at page 5 of Attachment I. In response to the Department's request, Forecarry provided some partially translated workshop records that it claimed supported the managers' estimates of labor factors reported in its FOP database. However, because these documents are not fully translated, as required by the Department's questionnaire, the Department cannot determine whether they in fact support Forecarry's reported labor. As described above, Forecarry failed to respond to the Department's requests for information in the form required. The absence of this information has significantly impeded this review because the Department has been unable to tie Forecarry's reported FOP database to Formost's books and records or any other appropriate source documentation. Forecarry failed to properly respond to the Department's requests, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, when it refused to provide documentation related to its reported FOPs. Forecarry's failure to provide the requested information prevented the Department from performing the calculations necessary to establish NV and determine whether Forecarry's U.S. sales were made at or below that NV. As a threshold matter, a respondent's submitted sales and cost data must reconcile to its audited financial statements or other documentation deemed appropriate by the Department ( *e.g.* , tax returns), in order for the Department to use that data in its margin calculations for that company. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia* , 71 FR 74900 (Dec. 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Because Forecarry has not demonstrated that its reported FOP data ties to its books and records or other appropriate source documentation, Forecarry's entire FOP database is unuseable for purposes of these preliminary results. Moreover, because there is no acceptable FOP database to which we can compare Forecarry's U.S. sales information, we are also unable to use that information. Therefore, pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department must disregard all of Forecarry's U.S. sales and FOP data. Finally, we find that the application of section 782(e) of the Act does not overcome Forecarry's failure to provide a useable response. *See* sections 782(e)(1), (3), and

(4)of the Act. Because the information that Forecarry failed to supply is critical for purposes of the preliminary dumping calculations, the Department must resort to total facts otherwise available in determining the margin in its preliminary results, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act. Nonetheless, the Department is providing Forecarry with a final opportunity to substantiate its reported FOPs by:

(1)Reconciling its reported FOPs to Formost's normal books and records; and

(2)demonstrating how the reported FOPs were calculated. Documentation that would enable the Department to substantiate these items would include, but is not limited to, worksheets that reconcile the reported factors for material inputs to Formost's books and records, records from the relevant workshops and worksheets that tie these records to Formost's reported direct labor amounts, and worksheets that tie Formost's reported factors for electricity to meter readings or other appropriate source documentation. We are allowing Forecarry to provide this information no later than January 3, 2007. If we receive a timely response, we will consider this information for purposes of the final results. 2. Future Tool As noted in the “Background” section, above, Future Tool responded to the Department's request for quantity and value data on February 22, 2006, and it submitted a response to section A of the questionnaire on April 10, 2006. On May 9, 2006, the Department designated Future Tool as a mandatory respondent in this administrative review, and it issued the remaining sections of the questionnaire to the company on that date. However, Future Tool failed to respond to this request for information. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(C)of the Act, because this company did not respond to sections C and D of the Department's questionnaire, the Department preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available is appropriate. Moreover, as a result of its failure to respond to the Department's requests for information, Future Tool failed to establish its eligibility for a separate rate. Therefore, Future Tool is not eligible to receive a separate rate and will be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate. As noted above, this rate will be based on total facts available. 3. Shandong Machinery As discussed in the “Background” section, above, on February 7, 2006, the Department requested that Shandong Machinery provide data on the quantity and value of its exports during the POR to the United States. The deadline to file a response was February 28, 2006. Because the Department did not receive a response from this company, 1 on March 3, 2006, we again issued a letter to Shandong Machinery with a second opportunity to respond to the Department's request for quantity and value information. Shandong Machinery also did not respond to the Department's March 3, 2006, letter. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(C)of the Act, because this company did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, the Department preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available is appropriate. Moreover, Shandong Machinery failed to establish its eligibility for a separate rate. Therefore, Shandong will be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate. As noted above, this rate will be based on total facts available. 1 The Department included documentation confirming delivery of the initial quantity and value questionnaire to Shandong Machinery in its March 3, 2006, letter at Attachment II. B. Adverse Facts Available

(AFA)According to section 776(b) of the Act, 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, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise available. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 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 (Aug. 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. Rep. 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* ). Each of the respondents was notified in the Department's questionnaires that failure to submit the requested information by the date specified might result in the use of facts available. Generally, it is reasonable to assume that Forecarry/Formost and the PRC-wide entity (including Shandong Machinery and Future Tool) possessed the records necessary for this administrative review and that, by not supplying the information the Department requested, these companies failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. In addition, none of the companies in this review argued that they were incapable of providing the information the Department requested, or requested that the Department modify its reporting requirements in accordance with 782(c)(1) of the Act. Accordingly, because Forecarry/Formost failed to submit useable FOP information, which was not only specifically requested by the Department, but was also fundamental to the dumping analysis, and PRC-wide entity (including Future Tool and Shandong Machinery) failed to respond to the Department's requests for information, we preliminarily find that these companies have not acted to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available. *See Nippon* , 337 F.3d at 1382-83. C. Selection of an AFA Rate In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from:

(1)The petition;

(2)a final determination in the investigation;

(3)any previous review or determination; or

(4)any information placed on the record. In reviews, the Department normally selects as AFA the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding. *See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 19504 (Apr. 21, 2003). The Court of International Trade

(CIT)and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc.* v. *United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ( *Rhone Poulenc* ); *NSK Ltd.* v. *United States* , 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation); *Kompass Food Trading Int'l* v. *United States* , 24 CIT 678, 689

(2000)(upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent); and *Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd.* v. *United States* , 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339 at 1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See SAA* at 870; *see also Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil* , 69 FR 76910 (Dec. 23, 2004); and *D&L Supply Co.* v. *United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *See Rhone Poulenc* , 899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its normal practice, the Department has assigned the rate of 383.60 percent to the PRC-wide entity (including Shandong Machinery and Future Tool) and Forecarry/Formost as AFA. This rate was assigned in the investigation of this proceeding and is the highest rate determined for any party in any segment of this proceeding. *See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 65410 (Nov. 12, 2004) ( *Hand Trucks Amended Final Determination* ). As discussed below, this rate has been corroborated. D. Corroboration of Secondary Information Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies on the facts otherwise available and on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The *SAA* states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. *See SAA* at 870. The Department has determined that to have probative value, information must be reliable and relevant. *See SAA* at 870; *see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (Nov. 6, 1996). The *SAA* also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See SAA* at 870. *See also Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan* , 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003), unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan* , 68 FR 62560, 62561 (Nov. 5, 2003); and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine from Canada* , 70 FR 12181 (Mar. 11, 2005). We are applying as AFA the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, which is the rate currently applicable to all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. The information upon which the AFA rate is based in the current review ( *i.e.* , the PRC-wide rate of 383.60 percent) was the highest rate calculated based on information contained in the petition in the LTFV investigation. *See Hand Trucks Amended Final Determination* , 69 FR at 65411. This AFA rate is the same rate that the Department assigned to certain hand truck companies in the original LTFV determination. In the investigation, the Department determined the reliability of the margin contained in the petition by comparing the U.S. prices from the price quotes in the petition to prices of comparable products sold by Huatian, a mandatory respondent in the LTFV investigation, and found them to be comparable. The Department also compared the surrogate values used in the petition to the surrogate values selected for the final determination, and then adjusted and replaced certain values to make them more accurate. *Finally, the Department replaced the surrogate value ratios in the petition with those used in the final investigation. Therefore, in the investigation, we found this margin to be reliable. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 29509 (May 24, 2004), as amended by *Hand Trucks Amended Final Determination* , 69 FR at 65411. Further, the application of this margin was subject to comment from interested parties in that segment of the proceeding. The Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the rate and no party has submitted comments challenging the reliability of this margin. Thus, the Department finds that the margin calculated in the LTFV investigation is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (Feb. 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D & L Supply Co.* v. *United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present here. Further, the selected margin is currently the PRC-wide rate. As there is no information on the record of these reviews that indicates that this rate is not relevant as AFA for Forecarry/Formost and the PRC-wide entity, we determine that this rate is relevant. Because the rate is both reliable and relevant, it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate determined in any segment of this administrative proceeding ( *i.e.* , 383.60 percent) is corroborated ( *i.e.* , it has probative value). We have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise by Forecarry/Formost and the PRC-wide entity, including Future Tool and Shandong Machinery. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate ( *i.e.* , a PRC-wide rate). Of the three respondents participating in these reviews, two of the companies ( *i.e.* , Forecarry and Since Hardware) are owned wholly by entities located in market-economy countries. Thus, for these two companies, because we have no evidence indicating that they are under the control of the PRC government, a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether they are independent from government control. *See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth New Shipper Review* , 66 FR 44331 (Aug. 23, 2001), citing *Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth New Shipper Review* , 66 FR 29080 (May 29, 2001) (where the respondent was wholly owned by a U.S. registered company); *Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 1303, 1306 (Jan. 8, 2001) (where the respondent was wholly owned by a company located in Hong Kong); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China* , 64 FR 71104, 71105 (Dec. 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly owned by persons located in Hong Kong). The remaining participating respondent, True Potential, is a privately owned company in the PRC. Thus, for True Potential, a separate-rate analysis is necessary to determine whether the export activities of this company is independent from government control. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China* , 61 FR 56570 (Apr. 30, 1996). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent in its export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department utilizes a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), and amplified in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) ( *Silicon Carbide* ). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over its export activities. 1. De Jure Control Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes:

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

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

(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. True Potential has placed on the administrative record documents to demonstrate an absence of *de jure* control ( *i.e.* , the 1999 “Company Law of the People's Republic of China”). As in prior cases, we have analyzed this law and have found it to establish sufficiently an absence of *de jure* control over privately owned companies in the PRC. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22546-47 (May 8, 1995) ( *Furfuryl Alcohol* ); and *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 29571, 29573 (June 5, 1995) (unchanged in the final determination). We have no new information in this proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this determination with regard to True Potential. 2. De Facto Control As stated in previous cases, there is evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *See Silicon Carbide* , 60 FR at 29573; and *Furfuryl Alcohol* , 60 FR at 22546-47. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control that would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:

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

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

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

(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide* , 60 FR at 29573; and *Furfuryl Alcohol* , 60 FR at 22546-47. True Potential has asserted the following:

(1)It establishes its own export prices;

(2)it negotiates orders without guidance from any government entities or organizations;

(3)it makes its own personnel decisions; and

(4)it retains the proceeds of its export sales and uses profits according to its business needs. Additionally, True Potential's questionnaire responses indicate that it did not coordinate its pricing during the POR with other exporters of the subject merchandise. Consequently, we have preliminarily determined that True Potential has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate based on the documentation it has submitted on the record of this review. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Since Hardware and True Potential to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared each company's export prices

(EPs)to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. Export Price For Since Hardware and True Potential, we used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act for sales in which the subject merchandise was first sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States and for sales in which constructed export price was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP based on packed, FOB foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. Because foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate rates from India ( *see* the “Surrogate Country” section, above, for further discussion of our surrogate-country selection). To value foreign inland trucking charges, we used truck freight rates published in an Indian logistics Web site that tracks freight rates for all of India ( *i.e., http://www.infreight.com* ). To value foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we calculated an average rate based on two different sources:

(1)The December 2003-November 2004 data contained in Essar Steel's (Essar) February 28, 2005, public version response submitted in the antidumping administrative review of Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India; and

(2)the November 2002-September 2003 data contained in Pidilite Industries' (Pidilite) March 9, 2004, public version response submitted in the antidumping duty investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 2018 (Jan. 12, 2006) (unchanged in the final results); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India,* 69 FR 67306 (Nov. 17, 2004). Because the data from both Essar and Pidilite were outside of the POR, we applied Indian wholesale price index

(WPI)inflators to them to make them contemporaneous with the POR before calculating an average foreign brokerage and handling expense rate. *See* the December 29, 2006, memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood to the file entitled, “Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the First New Shipper Review” (Factor Valuation Memorandum) for a detailed description of the calculation of these surrogate values. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME country and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department will base NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of the PRC economy renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. The FOPs include, but are not limited to, hours of labor required, quantities of raw materials employed, amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and representative capital costs, including depreciation. *See* section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In examining surrogate values, we selected, where possible, the publicly available value which was an average non-export value, representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 75294, 75300 (Dec. 16, 2004) (unchanged in the final results). In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Since Hardware (adjusted as appropriate for our findings at verification) and True Potential for the POR for materials, energy, labor, by-products, and packing. *See* the Factor Valuation Memorandum. As the basis for NV, Since Hardware and True Potential reported FOP information for each separate stage of production, including the factors used in the production of all self-produced material and energy inputs, and by-products. We have valued the factors reported for each self-produced input for purposes of the preliminary results, in accordance with our practice. *See Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 62086 (Oct. 23, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), where a producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it in a market-economy currency, the Department employs the actual price paid to calculate the factors-based NV. *See Lasko Metal Products* v. *United States,* 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Since Hardware reported that some of its inputs were purchased from market economies and paid for in market-economy currencies. *See* the “Factor Valuations” section of this notice, below, for further discussion. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by the respondents for the POR. We relied on the factor specification data submitted by the respondents for the above-mentioned inputs in their questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses, where applicable, for purposes of selecting surrogate values. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate values (except where noted below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp.* v. *United States,* 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for the respondents, see the Factor Valuation Memorandum. As explained above, Since Hardware provided evidence that it had purchased certain raw material inputs from market-economy suppliers and paid for them in market-economy currencies. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department has determined to use the market-economy prices as reported by Since Hardware in order to value these inputs in instances where the inputs were obtained from both market-economy and NME suppliers because the market-economy inputs represent a significant quantity of the inputs and they were paid for in a market-economy currency. Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using December 2004-November 2005 weighted-average Indian import values derived from the *World Trade Atlas* Web site ( *WTA* ) ( *see also* the Factor Valuation Memorandum). The Indian import statistics we obtained from the *WTA* were published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of India, and were reported in rupees. Indian surrogate values denominated in foreign currencies were converted to U.S. dollars using the applicable exchange rate for India from the Department's Web site. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values for inflation using WPIs as published in the International Monetary Fund's *International Financial Statistics. See* the Factor Valuation Memorandum. It is the Department's current practice that, where the facts developed in U.S. or third-country countervailing duty findings include the existence of subsidies that appear to be used generally (in particular, broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies), it is reasonable for the Department to consider that it has particular and objective evidence to support a reason to believe or suspect that prices of the inputs from the country granting the subsidies may be subsidized. * See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, * 66 FR 1953 (Jan. 10, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part,* 66 FR 57420 (Nov. 15, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; and *China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp.* v. *United States* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (CIT 2003). Therefore, in instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from NME countries, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand to value the FOPs. Finally, we excluded imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country from the average value because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with general export subsidies. Surrogate Valuations We valued the following FOPs using India import statistics as published by the *WTA,* contemporaneous with the POR: Acetylene, aluminum rivets, aluminum sections, argon gas, axis of rotation, ball bearings, barium sulfate, brightening agents, bungee cable, butyl ether, carbon dioxide, dyes, epoxy resin, filler, hydrochloric acid, ink, iron rings, lacquer, light calcium carbonate, lock washers, muriate of potash, nitric acid, nuts, oxygen, PA resin, PE resin, PP resin, paint powder, pigment, phosphate, pins, phosphoric acid, plating pencils, rubber part, standard parts ( *i.e.* , screws or bolts with nuts or washers), steel sand, steel rods, steel springs, sulfuric acid, tapping screws, tianna water, titanium dioxide, welded pipe, welding rod, zinc alloys, zinc chloride, and zinc ingots. We valued hot-rolled steel using Indian import statistics as published by the *WTA* covering the period December 2003 to November 2004. Because this data was from a period prior to the POR, we applied a WPI inflator to it to make it contemporaneous with the POR. We valued paraffin using Indian domestic market prices reported in *Chemical Weekly* , contemporaneous with the POR. *See* the Factor Valuation Memorandum. We valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. We applied a WPI inflator to this surrogate value to make it contemporaneous with the POR. *See id.* We valued diesel oil and coal oil using data obtained from *Key World Energy Statistics 2005* , published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), for the first quarter of 2005. *See id.* We valued electricity using the 2000 total average price per kilowatt hour for “Electricity for Industry” as reported in *Key World Energy Statistics 2003* , published by the IEA. We applied a WPI inflator to this surrogate value to make it contemporaneous with the POR. *See id.* To value plastic bags, PS foam, tape, and instruction books ( *i.e.* , the packing materials reported by the respondents), we used Indian import statistics as published by the *WTA* , contemporaneous with the POR. *See id.* Regarding petrolatum, reported by Since Hardware, we did not value this factor because:

(1)Surrogate value information was not available; and

(2)the material was reported as being used in minimal amounts. In previous cases, where certain materials were reportedly consumed in very small amounts and the surrogate values for these materials were not available, the Department did not include surrogate values for these materials in its calculation of NV. *See Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 67434, 67439 (Nov. 7, 2005) (unchanged in the final results); *Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8; *Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium from the Russian Federation: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 65656 (Dec. 15, 1997), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11; and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oscillating Fans and Ceiling Fans from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 55273 (Oct. 25, 1991). For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's Web site, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/03wages/110805-2003-Tables/03wages-110805.html#table1* . The source of these wage rate data on Import Administration's Web site is the *Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing* . Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondents. *See id.* To determine factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit for the finished product, we relied on rates derived from the financial statements of Rexello Castors Private Limited (Rexello), an Indian producer of identical merchandise. We applied these ratios to the respondents' costs (determined as noted above). *See id.* Finally, the respondents reported that they generated certain other by-products as a result of the production of hand trucks. We valued steel scrap using Indian import statistics as published by the *WTA* , contemporaneous with the POR. We valued aluminum scrap and recycled paint powder using Indian import statistics as published by the *WTA* , covering the period December 2002 to November 2003. Because this data was prior to the POR, we applied a WPI inflator to it to make it contemporaneous with the POR. Preliminary Results of Reviews We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist during the period December 1, 2004, through November 1, 2005: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted- average margin percentage Forecarry Corp./Formost Plastics & Metalworks (Jianxing) Co., Ltd. 383.60 Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd 12.22 True Potential Co., Ltd 39.54 PRC-Wide Rate 2 383.60 Disclosure The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will generally be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of these administrative and new shipper reviews, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any comments, and at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 2 We note that because both Future Tool and Shandong Machinery are part of the PRC-wide entity, they are subject to the PRC-wide rate. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer- or customer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. For True Potential, we do not have the actual entered value because it was either not the importer of record for the subject merchandise or was unable to obtain the entered value data for its reported sales from the importer of record. For True Potential, we intend to calculate individual customer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate customer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on export prices. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by these reviews if any importer- or customer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of these reviews is above *de minimis* . For entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from companies not subject to these reviews, we will instruct CBP to liquidate them at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these reviews for all shipments of hand trucks and certain parts thereof from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rates for all respondents will be the rates determined in the final results of review (except that if a rate is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit will be required);

(2)the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding (which were not reviewed in this segment of the proceeding) will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding ( *i.e.* , Huatian and Taifa);

(3)the cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity (including Future Tool and Shandong Machinery) will continue to be 383.60 percent; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These administrative and new shipper reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214. Dated: December 29, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-45 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Notice of Extension of the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Honey From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Michael Quigley; AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1442 and

(202)482-4047, respectively. Background The Department of Commerce (“Department”) received a timely request from Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Bloom”), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). On August 30, 2006, the Department found that the request for review with respect to Shanghai Bloom met all of the regulatory requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated an antidumping duty new shipper review covering the period December 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review,* 71 FR 52764 (September 7, 2006). The preliminary results are currently due no later than February 26, 2007. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated and final results of a review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. The Department may, however, extend the time period for completion of the preliminary results of a new shipper review to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). The Department has determined that the review is extraordinarily complicated as the Department must gather additional publicly available information, issue additional supplemental questionnaires, and conduct verification of the responses. Based on the timing of the case and the additional information that must be gathered and verified, the preliminary results of this new shipper review cannot be completed within the statutory time limit of 180 days. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of the new shipper review of Shanghai Bloom to 300 days. The preliminary results will now be due no later than June 26, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). The final results will, in turn, be due 90 days after the date of issuance of the preliminary results, unless extended. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 28, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-54 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Changed Circumstances Review and Determination To Revoke Order in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 9, 2007. SUMMARY: On November 14, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation and preliminary results of an antidumping duty (“AD”) changed circumstances review with intent to revoke, in part, the AD order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Intent to Revoke Order in Part,* 71 FR 66309 (November 14, 2006) (“ *Initiation and Preliminary Results* ”). We are now revoking this order in part, with regard to the following product: Cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets, as described in footnote 12 the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice, based on the fact that domestic parties have expressed no further interest in the relief provided by the order with respect to the imports of these jewelry cabinets, as so described. In its September 20, 2006, submission, the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and its individual members (the “AFMC”) stated that it no longer has any interest in seeking antidumping relief from imports of such cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets with respect to the subject merchandise defined in the “Scope of the Order” section below. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0414 and

(202)482-3434, respectively. Background On September 20, 2006, the Department received a request on behalf of the petitioners, the AFMC, for revocation in part of the AD order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC pursuant to sections 751(b)(1) and 782(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), with respect to cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets. In its September 20, 2006, submission, AFMC stated that it no longer has any interest in antidumping relief from imports of such cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets. Scope of Changed Circumstances Review The merchandise covered by this changed circumstances review is cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets from the PRC meeting the following description. An integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, *i.e.* , a framed tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and which constitutes a jewelry cabinet lined with fabric, having necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with or without a working lock and key to secure the contents of the jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere on the integrated piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least 50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth. Effective upon publication of this final results of changed circumstances review in the **Federal Register** , the amended scope of the order will read as follows. Scope of the Amended Order The product covered is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, oriented strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished. The subject merchandise includes the following items:

(1)Wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds;

(2)wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds;

(3)night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets;

(4)dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser;

(5)chests-on-chests 1 , highboys 2 , lowboys 3 , chests of drawers 4 , chests 5 , door chests 6 , chiffoniers 7 , hutches 8 , and armoires 9 ;

(6)desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and

(7)other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list. 1 A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy. 2 A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height). 3 A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more than four feet high, normally set on short legs. 4 A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers for storing clothing. 5 A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be designed as a large box incorporating a lid. 6 A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may also include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics. 7 A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached. 8 A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides storage for clothes. 9 An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment systems. The scope of the order excludes the following items:

(1)Seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture;

(2)mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames;

(3)office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases;

(4)dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches;

(5)other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems;

(6)bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan;

(7)side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard;

(8)bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate; 10

(9)jewelry armories; 11

(10)cheval mirrors 12

(11)certain metal parts 13

(12)mirrors that do not attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set. 10 As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by cooling or drying. See Customs' Headquarters' Ruling Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976. 11 Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24″ in width, 18″ in depth, and 49″ in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or felt-like material, at least one side door (whether or not the door is lined with felt or felt-like material), with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset mirror. See Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, Issues and Decision Memorandum Concerning Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China dated August 31, 2004. *See also Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation in Part,* (71 FR 38621) (July 7, 2006). 12 Cheval mirrors, *i.e.* , any framed, tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50″ that is mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base. Additionally, the scope of the order excludes combination cheval mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, *i.e.* , a framed tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and which constitutes a jewelry cabinet lined with fabric, having necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with or without a working lock and key to secure the contents of the jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere on the integrated piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least 50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth. 13 Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise specifically named in this scope ( *i.e.* , wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.7000. Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) as “wooden * * * beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other * * * wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood” and framed glass mirrors may also be entered under subheading 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors * * * framed.” This order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Final Results of Review; Partial Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order The affirmative statement of no interest by petitioners concerning cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets, as described herein, constitutes changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation of this order in part. No party commented on the *Initiation and Preliminary Results.* Additionally, no party contests that petitioners' statement of no interest represents the views of substantially all of the domestic industry. Therefore, the Department is partially revoking the order on wooden bedroom furniture with respect to cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets from the PRC with regard to products which meet the specifications detailed above, in accordance with sections 751(b),

(d)and 782(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d) and 351.222(g). We will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties, as applicable, and to refund any estimated antidumping duties collected for all unliquidated entries of cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets, meeting the specifications indicated above, and not subject to final results of an administrative review as of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the final results of this changed circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222. This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This changed circumstances administrative review, partial revocation of the antidumping duty order and notice are in accordance with sections 751(b),

(d)and 782(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(e) and 351.222(g). Dated: December 27, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-100 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Expected Non-Market Economy Wages: Request for Comments on 2006 Calculation AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Request for comment. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) has a longstanding practice of calculating expected non-market economy (“NME”) wages for use as the surrogate value for direct labor in antidumping proceedings involving NME countries. These expected NME wages are calculated annually in accordance with § 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations. This notice presents the Department's preliminary 2006 expected NME wages, which were calculated according to the Department's revised methodology described in the **Federal Register** notice *Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments,* 71 FR 61716, Oct. 19, 2006 (hereafter, the “Antidumping Methodologies notice”), and provides the public with an opportunity to comment on potential clerical errors in the calculation. DATES: Comments must be submitted no later than 10 days after publication of this notice. ADDRESSES: Written comments (original and six copies) should be sent to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shauna Lee-Alaia, Policy Analyst, Office of Policy, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,

(202)482-2793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department's regulations generally describe the methodology by which the Department calculates expected NME wages: For labor, the Secretary will use regression-based wage rates reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national income in market economy countries. The Secretary will calculate the wage rate to be applied in non-market economy proceedings each year. The calculation will be based on current data, and will be made available to the public.19 CFR 351.408 (c)(3). Briefly, the Department's expected NME wages are calculated each year in two steps. First, the relationship between hourly wage rates (obtained from the International Labour Organization's (“ILO”) *Yearbook of Labour Statistics* ) and per-capita gross national income (“GNI”) (obtained from the World Bank) is estimated using ordinary least squares

(OLS)regression analysis. Second, the GNI of each of the countries designated by the Department to be an NME are applied to the regression, which yields an expected hourly wage rate for each NME. The Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** on October 19, 2006 which detailed its revised methodology for calculating expected NME wages in antidumping proceedings involving NME countries. *See* the Antidumping Methodologies notice. In that notice, the Department stated that its annual calculation of expected NME wage rates will be subject to public comment approximately one month prior to adoption. The Department noted further that comment will be requested only with regard to potential clerical errors in the Department's calculation. Accordingly, this notice presents the Department's preliminary 2006 calculation of expected NME wages in Attachment 1, which were calculated according to the Department's revised methodology described in the Antidumping Methodologies notice. The Department is requesting public comment only on the potential clerical errors in the calculation. Comments with regard to the methodology were addressed in the Antidumping Methodologies notice and will not be considered at this time. In order to facilitate a full opportunity for comment, and because the underlying data is voluminous, the preliminary results and underlying data for the preliminary 2006 expected NME wages calculation have been posted on the Import Administration Web site ( *http://ia.ita.doc.gov* ). This preliminary calculation will not be used for antidumping purposes until it has been finalized by the Department following the public comment period. Comment Persons wishing to comment on potential clerical errors in the Department's preliminary 2006 calculation of expected NME wages presented in Attachment 1 should file one signed original and six copies of each set of comments by the date specified above. The Department will consider all comments regarding potential clerical errors received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for inspection and copying at Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form. The Department recommends submission of comments in electronic form to accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted either by e-mail to the Webmaster below, or on CD-ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment. Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the public in Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the Import Administration Web site at the following address: *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.* Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at

(202)482-0866, e-mail address: *webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov.* Dated: December 29, 2006. Steven J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Attachment 1 2006 Calculation of Expected NME Wages Following the criteria and methodology described in the Antidumping Methodologies notice, and using the data available to the Department as of November 8, 2006, the Department has calculated preliminary 2006 expected NME wages. 2003 and 2004 data in Chapter 5B of the ILO International Labour Statistics were available for 79 entities: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belgium, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, French Polynesia, Georgia, Germany, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jersey, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, West Bank and Gaza strip. Within this data set, for 2003 and 2004, there were no “earnings” data for Italy, Myanmar, Peru and Thailand. Similarly, there were no “men and women” data for French Polynesia. 2003 and 2004 data representing all industries (“Total”) were available for the remaining 74 entities. There were two entries for Poland which met all of the Department's criteria for choosing a single wage rate. These two entries were averaged to arrive at a single wage rate. Of these 74 entities, a consumer price index was unavailable for the following 10: Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Gibraltar, Jersey, Puerto Rico, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, and Ukraine. Of the remaining 64 entities, there was no exchange rate available for the Isle of Man, Macau, and West Bank and Gaza Strip. Of the remaining 61 entities, the following are currently or were NMEs designated by the Department in 2003 or 2004: Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Moldova. Accordingly, the Department ran its preliminary 2006 expected NME wage regression on the following 58 countries: Albania, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States. As noted in the ILO database, the wage rates for Korea and Mongolia are denominated in units of 1,000 of their respective national currency, and have been converted accordingly. On July 1, 2005, Romania re-denominated its currency, with one old leu equal to 10,000 new leu. Romanian ILO data was adjusted accordingly. Following the data compilation and regression methodology described in the Antidumping Methodologies notice, and using GNI and wage data for Base Year 2004, the regression results are: Wage = 0.091436 + 0.000494* GNI. Country 2004 GNI (USD per annum) Expected NME wage rate (USD per hour) Armenia 1,140 0.65 Azerbaijan 930 0.55 Belarus 2,150 1.15 China 1,500 0.83 Georgia 1,060 0.62 Kyrgyz Republic 400 0.29 Moldova 720 0.45 Tajikistan 280 0.23 Uzbekistan 450 0.31 Vietnam 540 0.36 The World Bank did not publish a GNI for Turkmenistan. As stated above, the full preliminary results and underlying data for the 2006 expected NME wages calculation have been posted on the Import Administration Web site ( *http://ia.ita.doc.gov* ). [FR Doc. E7-56 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS Notice of Meeting The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 18 January 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion affecting the appearance of Washington, DC, may include buildings, parks and memorials. Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site: *http://www.cfa.gov* . Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting. Dated in Washington, DC, 28 December 2006. Thomas Luebke, Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-23 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 27

Traces to 27 documents

U.S. Code