Notices. Notice and request for comments

11,841 words·~54 min read·/register/2007/02/14/07-681

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Risk Management Agency Notice for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Risk Management Agency, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Risk Management Agency

(RMA)to request an extension for and revision to a currently approved information collection for projects listed in the Abstract of this document. DATES: Written comments on this notice will be accepted until close of business April 16, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request additional information on the proposed collection of information contact: Lon Burke, Risk Management Education Division USDA/RMA, Stop 0808, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0808, or call

(202)720-5265. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Agricultural Risk Management Education and Information. *OMB Number:* 0563-0070. *Expiration Date of Approval:* September 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The Federal Crop Insurance Act directs the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, operating through RMA, to

(a)establish crop insurance education and information programs in States that have been historically underserved by the Federal crop insurance program [7 U.S.C. 1524(a)(2)]; and

(b)provide agricultural producers with training opportunities in risk management, with a priority given to producers of specialty crops and underserved commodities [7 U.S.C. 1522(d)(3)(F)]. With this submission, RMA seeks to obtain OMB's generic approval for four information collection projects that will assist RMA in operating and evaluating these programs. The four information collection projects are:

(1)Request for Applications;

(2)Performance Reporting;

(3)Training Session Evaluation; and

(4)Needs Assessment. The primary objectives of the four information collection projects are, respectively, to:

(1)Enable RMA to better evaluate the performance capacity and plans of organizations that are applying for funds for cooperative and partnership agreements;

(2)document the scope of activities conducted by the recipients of Federal educational funding;

(3)assess the effectiveness of individual educational activities; and

(4)provide program managers and policy makers with information regarding the effectiveness of educational programs in underserved States. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to approve this information collection activity for 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public concerning this information collection activity. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average: 8 hours per response for agri-business professionals, for a total of 5,904 hours and 15 minutes per response for producers, for a total of 21 hours. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Agribusiness professionals and agricultural producers. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 19,450 respondents (2,950 agribusiness professionals and 16,500 agricultural producers). *Estimated annual number of responses:* 19,450 responses or 1 per respondent. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 5,925 hours (5,904 hours for agribusiness professionals and 21 hours for agricultural producers). Comments may be sent to Lon Burke, Risk Management Education Division, USDA/RMA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0808, Room 5720, Washington, DC 20250-0808. Comments may also be submitted electronically to: *RMA.Risk-Ed@rma.usda.gov.* All comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Signed in Washington, DC, on February 8, 2007. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-2557 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-815, A-580-816, C-580-818] Continuation Pursuant to Second Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany and Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping (“AD”) orders on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“CORE”) from Germany and Korea would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping; that revocation of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on CORE from Korea would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy; and that revocation of these AD and CVD orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 14, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown (AD orders), Stephanie Moore (CVD order), or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2849,

(202)482-3692, or

(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the AD orders on CORE from Germany and Korea and CVD order on CORE from Korea, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), respectively. *See Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005). As a result of its reviews, the Department found that revocation of the AD orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidization, and notified the ITC of the margins of dumping and the subsidy rates likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. *See Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea, 71 FR 32508 (June 6, 2006) and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Expedited Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review of Countervailing Duty Order* , 71 FR 32519 (June 6, 2006) (collectively, “ *Final Results* ”). On January 31, 2007, the ITC determined that revocation of the AD orders on CORE from Germany and Korea and the CVD order on CORE from Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom* , 72 FR 4529 (January 31, 2007) (“ *ITC Determination* ”) and USITC Publication 3899 (January 2007), entitled * Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom: Investigation Nos. AA1921-197; (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review). * Scope of the Orders The products subject to these orders include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 mm, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness, or if of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more, are of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. Included in these orders are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”) - for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from the scope of these orders are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from the scope of these orders are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from the scope of the orders are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion- resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of these AD and CVD orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy, and of material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD orders on CORE from Germany and Korea and the CVD order on CORE from Korea. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of these orders not later than December 2011. These five-year (sunset) reviews and notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 5, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-2565 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-602-803, A-122-822, A-588-824, A-427-808, C-427-810) Revocation Pursuant to Second Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Canada, Japan, and France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping (“AD”) orders on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“CORE”) from Australia, Canada, Japan, and France and the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on CORE from France would not be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is publishing this notice of revocation of these AD and CVD orders pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). EFFECTIVE DATE: December 15, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2849 or

(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 15, 2000, at the conclusion of the first sunset review of these orders, the Department published notice of continuation of these orders. *See Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom* , 65 FR 78469 (December 15, 2000). On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the AD and CVD orders on CORE from Australia, Canada, Japan and France, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act, respectively. *See Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”)* Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005). As a result of its reviews, the Department found that revocation of the AD orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and that revocation of the CVD order would likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidization and notified the ITC of the margins of dumping and the subsidy rates likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. *See Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea* , 71 FR 32508 (June 6, 2006)(“ *Final Results* ”) and *Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From France; Final Results of Full Sunset Review* , 71 FR 58584 (October 4, 2006). On January 31, 2007, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the AD and CVD orders on CORE from Australia, Canada, Japan, and France would not be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom* , 72 FR 4529 (January 31, 2007) (“ITC Determination”) and USITC Publication 3899 (January 2007), entitled *Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom: Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review)* . Scope of the Orders The products subject to these orders include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 mm, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness, or if of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more, are of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. Included in these orders are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”) - for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from the scope of these orders are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from the scope of these orders are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from the scope of the orders are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion- resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. The Department has issued numerous rulings regarding the scope of the order on Japan. A complete listing of these rulings is contained in the *Final Results* . Determination As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of these AD and CVD orders is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, the Department, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, is revoking the AD and CVD orders on CORE from Australia, Canada, Japan, and France. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is December 15, 2005 ( *i.e.* , the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the notice of continuation of the AD and CVD orders). The Department will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after December 15, 2005, the effective date of revocation of these AD and CVD orders. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. These five-year sunset reviews and notice are in accordance with section 751(d)(2) and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 5, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-2566 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-818] Notice of Final Results of the Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 8, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results and partial rescission of the ninth administrative review for the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. The review covers two manufacturers/ exporters:

(1)Atar, S.r.L. (“Atar”) and,

(2)Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.A. and its affiliate Pasta Combattenti S.p.A. (collectively, “Corticella/Combattenti”). The period of review (“POR”) is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. Further, requests for review of the antidumping duty order for the following companies were withdrawn: Barilla G.e.R. Fratelli, S.p.A./Barilla Alimentare, S.p.A. (“Barilla”), Moline e Pastificio Tomasello S.r.L. (“Tomasello”), and Pastificio Laporta S.a.s. (“Laporta”). We are rescinding the review with respect to Italpasta/Pasta Berruto S.p.A. (“Italpasta”) 1 because Italpasta submitted a letter stating that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. *See* 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). Finally, we are rescinding the review with respect to Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.L./Industrie Alimentari Molisane, S.r.L./Vitelli Foods, LLC (“Pallante”) because, since the initiation of the current review, the Department has revoked the order in part, with respect to Pallante, effective July 1, 2004. 1 In its September 20, 2005, letter, counsel for Italpasta S.p.A. informed the Department that it merged with its affiliate, Arrighi S.p.A. into a new company Pasta Berruto S.p.A. *See* Letter to the Department from Italpasta, Re: Pasta from Italy; Response to Questionnaire (September 20, 2005). As a result of our analysis of the comments received, these final results differ from the preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 14, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure and Maura Jeffords for Atar and Preeti Tolani for Corticella/Combattenti, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5973,

(202)482-3146 and

(202)482-0395, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 8, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results of the ninth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. *See Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy* , 71 FR 45017 (August 8, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). On August 1, 2006, we invited Atar to submit comments by August 11, 2006, and petitioners to submit rebuttal comments by August 21, 2006, in response to the Department's particular market situation determination. *See* Letter to Counsel for Atar, August 1, 2006, referencing Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, RE: Particular Market Situation, July 31, 2006. On August 10, Atar requested an extension to its deadline, which the Department granted until August 25, 2006. The Department extended petitioners' deadline until September 6, 2006. Atar submitted its comments on August 25, 2006. On August 30, 2006, counsel for the petitioners requested and received an extension until September 13, 2006. Petitioners submitted their comments on September 13, 2006. The Department verified Atar's sales and cost information between October 16 and 20, 2006, in Naples, Italy. Following the release of verification reports on November 30, 2006, the Department announced that interested parties could submit briefs no later than December 28, 2006, and rebuttal briefs no later than January 5, 2007. A public hearing was held on January 16, 2007. Scope of the Order Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of this order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, by Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I International Services, by Ecocert Italia, by Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, or by Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica. In addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as of March 13, 2003, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (“ICEA”) are also excluded from this order. *See* Memorandum from Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, dated February 28, 2006, entitled “Recognition of Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (“ICEA”) as a Public Authority for Certifying Organic Pasta from Italy” which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”). The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). The merchandise subject to this order is also classifiable under item 1901.90.9095. *See* Memorandum from Dennis McClure to James Terpstra, RE: Request for AD/CVD Module Update with the Addition of HTSUS Number for Pasta from Italy (A-475-818), November 1, 2006. Although the *HTSUS* subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. Rescission of Review In the *Preliminary Results* , we stated that we are rescinding the review for Laporta, Barilla, and Tomasello because they filed withdrawal requests within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of this review, as required by statute. We also stated that we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Italpasta because Italpasta submitted a letter stating that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We also preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to Pallante because the Department revoked the order in part with respect to Pallante, effective July 1, 2004 after the initiation of the current review. *See Notice of Final Results of the Eighth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Order on Certain Pasta From Italy and Determination to Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 71464 (November 29, 2005). Since our preliminary results were published, the Department has not received any comments regarding the decision to rescind this review for Laporta, Barilla, and Tomasello in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), for Italpasta, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and for Pallante, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b). Therefore, we are rescinding the reviews of these companies. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Atar 18.18 Corticella/Combattenti 1.95 Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of the administrative review for all shipments of certain pasta from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above;

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

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

(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.26 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy* , 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping and/or countervailing duties reimbursed. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO are sanctionable violations. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 5, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Atar, S.r.L. *Comment 1* : Whether the Department should continue to find that a particular market situation exists which prevents proper comparison with the export price and constructed export price *Comment 2* : Indirect Selling Expenses and Profit *Comment 3* : Distributions and Salaries *Comment 4* : Allocation of Certain Expenses Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.A. and its affiliate Pasta Combattenti S.p.A. *Comment 5* : Whether the Department made certain clerical errors in the margin program *Comment 6* : Whether the Department erred in applying the major-input rule [FR Doc. E7-2563 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 14, 2007. SUMMARY: On December 20, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation and preliminary results of an antidumping duty (“AD”) changed circumstances review and 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 76273 (December 20, 2006) (“ *Initiation and Preliminary Results* ”). We are now revoking this order in part, with regard to the following product: upholstered beds, as described in footnote 14 in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice, based on the domestic parties' expression of no interest in the relief provided by the order with respect to the imports of upholstered beds, as so described. In its October 26, 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 upholstered beds with respect to the subject merchandise defined in the “Scope of the Order” section below. On January 4, 2007, American Signature Incorporated (“ASI”), an interested party, submitted comments to the Department stating that exclusion of upholstered beds from the order is warranted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Robert Bolling, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4474 and

(202)482-3434, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 26, 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 upholstered beds. In its October 26, 2006, submission, AFMC stated that it no longer has any interest in antidumping relief from imports of such upholstered beds. Scope of Changed Circumstances Review The merchandise covered by this changed circumstances review are beds that are completely upholstered, *i.e.* , containing filling material and completely covered in sewn genuine leather, synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards, footboards, and side rails) must be upholstered except for bed feet, which may be of wood, metal, or any other material and which are no more than nine inches in height from the floor. 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;

(13)upholstered beds. 14 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 are, *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.. *See also wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation in Part* , (72 FR 38621) (January 9, 2007). 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. 14 Upholstered beds that are completely upholstered, *i.e.* , containing filling material and completely covered in sewn genuine leather, synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards, footboards, and side rails) must be upholstered except for bed feet, which may be of wood, metal, or any other material and which are no more than nine inches in height from the floor. 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 upholstered beds, as described herein, constitutes changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation of this order in part. Moreover, ASI supports AFMC's request. 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 upholstered beds from the PRC 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 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 upholstered beds, 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(g). 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: February 7, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-2564 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-851] Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on dynamic random access memory semiconductors from the Republic of Korea for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Our analysis of the comments received on the preliminary results did not lead to any changes in the net subsidy rate. Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final net subsidy rate for the reviewed company is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: February 14, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Williams or Andrew McAllister, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4619 or

(202)482-1174, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The following events have occurred since the publication of the preliminary results of this review. *See Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 46192 (August 11, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We invited interested parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . On October 2, 2006, we received a case brief and request for a hearing from Micron Technology, Inc. (“Micron”). We received a rebuttal brief from Hynix Semiconductor Inc. (“Hynix”), the only company covered in the review, on October 16, 2006. On November 16, 2006, we extended the time limit for the final results of this administrative review by 60 days (to February 7, 2007), pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 66751 (November 16, 2006). A public hearing was held at the Department on November 2, 2006. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are dynamic random access memory semiconductors (“DRAMS”) from the Republic of Korea (“ROK”), whether assembled or unassembled. Assembled DRAMS include all package types. Unassembled DRAMS include processed wafers, uncut die, and cut die. Processed wafers fabricated in the ROK, but assembled into finished semiconductors outside the ROK are also included in the scope. Processed wafers fabricated outside the ROK and assembled into finished semiconductors in the ROK are not included in the scope. The scope of this order additionally includes memory modules containing DRAMS from the ROK. A memory module is a collection of DRAMS, the sole function of which is memory. Memory modules include single in-line processing modules, single in-line memory modules, dual in-line memory modules, small outline dual in-line memory modules, Rambus in-line memory modules, and memory cards or other collections of DRAMS, whether unmounted or mounted on a circuit board. Modules that contain other parts that are needed to support the function of memory are covered. Only those modules that contain additional items which alter the function of the module to something other than memory, such as video graphics adapter boards and cards, are not included in the scope. This order also covers future DRAMS module types. The scope of this order additionally includes, but is not limited to, video random access memory and synchronous graphics random access memory, as well as various types of DRAMS, including fast page-mode, extended data-out, burst extended data-out, synchronous dynamic RAM, Rambus DRAM, and Double Data Rate DRAM. The scope also includes any future density, packaging, or assembling of DRAMS. Also included in the scope of this order are removable memory modules placed on motherboards, with or without a central processing unit, unless the importer of the motherboards certifies with CBP that neither it, nor a party related to it or under contract to it, will remove the modules from the motherboards after importation. The scope of this order does not include DRAMS or memory modules that are re-imported for repair or replacement. The DRAMS subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 8542.21.8005 and 8542.21.8020 through 8542.21.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The memory modules containing DRAMS from the ROK, described above, are currently classifiable under subheadings 8473.30.10.40 or 8473.30.10.80 of the HTSUS. Removable memory modules placed on motherboards are classifiable under subheadings 8471.50.0085, 8517.30.5000, 8517.50.1000, 8517.50.5000, 8517.50.9000, 8517.61.0000, 8517.62.0010, 8517.62.0050, 8517.69.0000, 8517.70.0000, 8517.90.3400, 8517.90.3600, 8517.90.3800, 8517.90.4400, 8542.31.00, 8542.32.0001, 8542.32.0020, 8542.32.0021, 8542.32.0022, 8542.32.0023, 8542.33.0000, 8542.39.0000, and 8543.89.9600 of the HTSUS. Scope Rulings On December 29, 2004, the Department received a request from Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), to determine whether removable memory modules placed on motherboards that are imported for repair or refurbishment are within the scope of the *CVD Order. See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea* , 68 FR 47546 (August 11, 2003) (“ *CVD Order* ”). The Department initiated a scope inquiry pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(e) on February 4, 2005. On January 12, 2006, the Department issued a final scope ruling, finding that removable memory modules placed on motherboards that are imported for repair or refurbishment are not within the scope of the *CVD Order* provided that the importer certifies that it will destroy any memory modules that are removed for repair or refurbishment. *See* Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys to David M. Spooner, regarding Final Scope Ruling, Countervailing Duty Order on DRAMs from the Republic of Korea (January 12, 2006). Period of Review The period for which we are measuring subsidies, *i.e.* , the period of review (“POR”), is January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the February 7, 2007, *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the Second Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea (“Decision Memorandum”)* from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the *Decision Memorandum* . Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Final Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for the producer/exporter, Hynix. For the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, we find the *ad valorem* net subsidy rate for Hynix is 31.86 percent. Assessment Rates The Department will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of DRAMS by Hynix entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, at 31.86 percent *ad valorem* of the entered value. Cash Deposits The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at 31.86 percent *ad valorem* of the entered value on all shipments of the subject merchandise from Hynix, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company. The Department has previously excluded Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. from this order. *See Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea* , 68 FR 44290 (July 28, 2003). Thus, the “all others” rate shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned this rate is requested. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 7, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* Benefit to Hynix of the 2004 Cash Buyout Program. *Comment 2:* The Department's Failure to Investigate Thoroughly the GOK's Entrustment or Direction of Hynix's Creditors in Connection with the CBO Components of the Non-Memory Asset Sale. *Comment 3:* Entrustment or Direction of Hynix's Creditors in Connection with the Tranche A Acquisition Financing and CBO Components of the Non-Memory Asset Sale. *Comment 4:* Whether the Department Should Have Investigated Hynix's Sale of Its LCD and Non-Memory Assets. *Comment 5:* Uncreditworthy Benchmark Interest/Discount Rate. [FR Doc. E7-2562 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 020707B] National Standard 1 Guidelines; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent

(NOI)to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); request for comments; notice of a public scoping meeting. SUMMARY: NMFS announces its intent to prepare an EIS and commencement of a scoping period in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969 to analyze alternatives for guidance regarding annual catch limit

(ACL)and accountability measures

(AM)and other overfishing provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA). Such guidance would be added to the National Standard 1

(NS1)guidelines. DATES: Written comments must be received by April 2, 2007. A public scoping meeting will be held at the NMFS Silver Spring headquarters office on March 9, 2007 (see ADDRESSES ) from 9a.m. through 3p.m. ADDRESSES: The scoping meeting will be held at 1315 East-West Highway; Room 4527; Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910. NMFS may hold additional scoping meetings and informal public meetings during the scoping period. You may submit comments on issues and alternatives, by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *annual.catch.limitDEIS@noaa.gov* . Include “Scoping comments on annual catch limit DEIS” in the subject line of the message. • Fax: 301-713-1193. • Mail: Mark Millikin; National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA; 1315 East-West Highway; Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Millikin, National Marine Fisheries Service, 301-713-2341. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access This **Federal Register** document is available on the Government Printing Office's website at: *www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index/html* . Background The MSRA, signed into law by President Bush on January 12, 2007, set forth new requirements related to overfishing, including new ACL and AM provisions for federally managed fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ). NMFS is initiating this action to develop guidance related to these new provisions, specifically, requirements set forth under sections 103(b)(1) and (c)(3), 104(a)(10), (b), and

(c)of the MSRA. NMFS intends to revise the National Standard 1

(NS1)Guidelines, 50 CFR 600.310, through a proposed and final rule to incorporate guidance of these MSRA sections before the end of 2007. Because of potential policy implications of these MSRA provisions on Federal fishery management plans (FMPs and plans) and their stocks, NMFS has decided to issue this NOI. However, as it develops this action, NMFS will continue to re-evaluate the environmental review and analyses needed for NEPA purposes. Public Scoping Process To help determine the scope of issues to be addressed and to identify significant issues related to this action, NMFS is soliciting written comments on this NOI through April 2, 2007, and will hold a public scoping meeting at the NMFS Silver Spring Headquarters, Building III, Room 4527, 9a.m. through 3p.m. on March 9, 2007. After considering comments received during the scoping process, NMFS will either develop a draft environmental impact statement

(DEIS)and proposed rule or an environmental assessment

(EA)and proposed rule. If NMFS issues a DEIS, it will provide for a 45-day comment period concurrent with public hearings. If NMFS issues a DEIS, then it will also issue a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). Following an EIS or EA and proposed rule, NMFS will issue a final rule in the **Federal Register** . Magnuson-Stevens Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) amended in 1996 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, is the chief authority for fisheries management in the U.S. EEZ. The Act requires, among other things, achieving optimum yield on a continuing basis, preventing overfishing, and rebuilding overfished stocks in as short a time as possible. Section 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act contains 10 national standards

(NS)with which all FMPs and their amendments and implementing regulations must be consistent. Section 301(b) requires that “the Secretary establish advisory guidelines (which shall not have the force and effect of law), based on the national standards to assist in the development of fishery management plans.” Conforming to the NS guidelines (50 CFR part 600, subpart D) when preparing an FMP, FMP amendment and regulations is essential to properly addressing the intentions of Congress when it established and revised the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The NS guidelines, most notably NS1, are often cited in Court cases, and judges frequently refer to them when considering the merits of an FMP or FMP amendment and its regulations. NS1 provides that “Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.” 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1). As this action focuses on MSRA's overfishing provisions, NMFS believes that it is appropriate to incorporate guidance on those provisions in the NS1 guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310. Ending overfishing of stocks undergoing overfishing, preventing overfishing of stocks approaching overfishing, and rebuilding overfished stocks to levels of abundance that can produce maximum sustainable yield

(MSY)on a continuing basis, are essential to achieving the objectives and goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Ending overfishing is paramount to more rapid and more certain rebuilding. According to the NS1 guidelines, overfishing occurs whenever the annual fishing mortality rate

(F)is greater than the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), 50 CFR 600.310(d)(2)(i). Continued overfishing will depress a stock, on average, below the level that can produce MSY. While some rebuilding of stock abundance can occur if F is slightly greater than MFMT, rebuilding rates are more rapid when overfishing does not occur, and rebuilding occurs faster, the more that F is reduced below MFMT. MSRA Section 104(a)(10): ACLs and AMs During the comment period on this NOI, and throughout development of this action, NMFS will seek input from the Councils and the public on implementation of the new MSRA overfishing provisions. To facilitate public comment in the following sections NMFS provides its preliminary interpretation of the new provisions, followed by an explanation of statutory deadlines and other timing considerations. Section 104(a)(10) of the MSRA amends section 303(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to require that any FMP shall “establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits in the plan (including a multi-year plan), implementing regulations and annual specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure accountability.” Species that have a life cycle of approximately 1 year (e.g., possibly some shrimp or squid species) are exempt from the requirements, unless the Secretary determines the species is undergoing overfishing. In addition, the ACL/AM requirements would not apply if “otherwise provided for under an international agreement.” Thus, the ACL/AM requirements may be applicable for some species managed under international agreements. Apart from the above exemptions, NMFS believes that section 104(a)(10) requires ACL/AM mechanisms for each federally-managed “stock or stock complex” contained in an FMP. Under the NS guidelines, “stock or stock complex” is used as a synonym for “fishery,” and is defined as “one or more stocks of fish that can be treated as a unit for purposes of conservation and management and that are identified on the basis of geographic, scientific, technical, recreational, or economic characteristics...” (50 CFR 600.305(c)(12)). NMFS understands an ACL to mean a specified amount of a fish stock (e.g., measure of weight or numbers of fish) for a fishing year that is a target amount of annual total catch that takes into account projected estimates for landings and discard mortality from all user groups and sectors. Per the MSRA, the ACL must be set “at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery.” Under the NS1 guidelines, overfishing of the stock occurs when MFMT is exceeded (50 CFR 600.310(d)(2)(i)). Thus, it is important to clarify the relationship between the ACL and the MFMT. While the MFMT is expressed as a rate of fishing, NMFS may recommend that FMPs be amended so that annual catch levels corresponding to MFMT—an overfishing level (OFL)—are specified along with ACLs in comparable units (e.g., weight or numbers of fish) to ACLs, to facilitate subsequent monitoring against the ACL. The OFL would be the maximum amount of annual catch from all sources (landings and discard mortality from all sectors) which does not result in overfishing. Once the ACL is reached, or projected to be reached, AMs established in the FMP will ensure that overfishing does not occur, or is appropriately mitigated (e.g., through payback provisions). NMFS believes that the extent of future management success using ACLs will depend largely upon ACLs being set sufficiently below the OFL for a fish stock, i.e., the size of the buffer needed between the OFL and ACL, to reduce the chance of exceeding the OFL. The types of ACLs used for a stock may vary depending upon the quality of data available for a fish stock and the fishery management goals. The size of the buffer needed between the ACL and OFL would depend upon quality of data available including: Knowledge of the stock's life history; availability and accuracy of current fishing year landings and historical landings data; accuracy and precision of fishery independent surveys; accuracy and precision of fishery dependent data; time since last stock assessment or update; frequency of stock assessments; discard mortality; recreational catches; and the extent of knowledge of the rate and magnitude of success or failure of recent management measures in ending or preventing overfishing for a fish stock. For discussion purposes in this NOI, “data poor stocks” are those stocks for which stock abundance is unknown or stock status with respect to overfishing and overfished is unknown. “Data rich” stocks are those for which annual catch values are known, and estimates of stock abundance or its proxy are available and sufficient to make overfishing and overfished status determinations. A broad gradation of data quality, quantity, and timeliness exists for various stocks which affects the accuracy and precision of “overfishing” and “overfished” status determinations. With regard to “measures of accountability” (referred to herein as accountability measures or AMs) required by MSRA section 104(a)(10), NMFS' initial interpretation is that they are part of the ACL mechanism and FMPs should contain AMs for each stock. AMs could also be used for each fishery sector. Because there are variances in: operation of fisheries, monitoring of a fishery within a fishing year, and availability of stock abundance information, it may not be feasible to set ACLs with the same level of precision for all stocks. AMs thus are intended to work with their associated ACLs to prevent overfishing of a stock from occurring. AMs could take the form of inseason management techniques that prevent the ACL from being exceeded in a given year (e.g., closures, or restrictions on retention of a stock), and/or corrective actions that will be implemented in subsequent fishing years to address overages of a stock's OFL in previous fishing years (e.g., reduction of a subsequent year's ACL), and to ensure that overfishing is ended. MSRA Section 103(b) and (c)(3): Scientific and Statistical Committees

(SSCs)Section 103(b) of MSRA includes new provisions relating to SSCs and peer review processes. Among other things, it specifies that SSCs shall provide their Councils with “ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for acceptable biological catch, preventing overfishing, maximum sustainable yield, and achieving rebuilding targets, and reports on stock status and health, bycatch, habitat status, social and economic impacts on management measures, and sustainability of fishing practices.” Section 103(b) also provides for the establishment of peer review processes. With regard to ACLs, section 103(c)(3) provides that a Council shall “develop ACLs for each of its managed fisheries that may not exceed the fishing level recommendations of its scientific and statistical committee or the peer review process established under subsection (g).” NMFS views these provisions as providing the SSCs or peer review processes with an important role in Council development of ACL mechanisms. NMFS would expect that SSCs or peer review processes would not only need to produce calculations of ACL and OFL, but also the probability that an ACL in combination with other factors such as retrospective patterns in stock assessments, e.g., overestimating stock abundance and underestimating actual fishing mortality rate (F), would or would not result in OFL being exceeded. MSRA Section 104(c) revises the rebuilding provisions of section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to require that, when a Council is notified that a stock is overfished, the Council shall — within 2 years after such notification — submit and implement an FMP, FMP amendment, or proposed regulations to end overfishing “immediately,” and rebuild the overfished stock in as short a time as possible. NMFS' preliminary review is that, because an FMP, FMP amendment, or regulations need to be implemented within 2 years of notification, a Council would need to submit the relevant action sufficiently in advance of the 2-year deadline (i.e., approximately one year and six months after notification) to ensure sufficient time (six months) for NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, to finalize and implement the action. Statutory Deadlines and Other Timing Considerations Per MSRA section 104(b), the ACL and AM requirements take effect in fishing year 2010, for stocks determined by the Secretary to be undergoing overfishing. Thus, NMFS believes that the Councils and NMFS would have to plan to have ACL and AM mechanisms in place for all stocks in their FMPs that can be used beginning with the 2010 fishing year, because it is unknown what stocks NMFS will have determined as undergoing overfishing just before the beginning of the 2010 fishing year. Stocks not determined to be undergoing overfishing will need ACLs and AMs by the 2011 fishing year, including stocks with unknown or undefined status regarding overfishing (i.e., the new requirement applies also to data poor stocks). MSRA section 104(c), which revises the requirements for rebuilding overfished fisheries, takes effect 30 months after the enactment of the MSRA, i.e., effective date of July 12, 2009. Thus, any fisheries determined to be overfished by the Secretary after that date would fall under the MSRA amendments to the rebuilding provisions of section 304(e)(3), instead of the current Magnuson-Stevens Act section 304(e)(3) provisions. Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 304(e)(3), within one year of being notified by NMFS, that a stock is overfished, a Council needs to prepare and submit an FMP, FMP amendment, or proposed regulations to rebuild the overfished stock and end overfishing. As discussed earlier, under the MSRA amendments to section 304(e)(3), within two years of being notified by NMFS, anytime on or after July 12, 2009, that a stock is overfished, a Council needs to prepare and NMFS needs to implement an FMP, FMP amendment, or proposed regulations to rebuild the overfished stock and end overfishing immediately. NMFS intends to complete its revisions of the NS1 guidelines pertaining to this action before the end of 2007. Upon implementation of the final rule, NMFS will review each Council's current provisions for ACLs and AMs and recommend any revisions it deems are appropriate. Some FMPs may already contain management measures that will meet the definition (or forthcoming criteria) of ACLs and AMs. If not, the FMPs will need to be amended to establish or revise ACLs and associated AMs consistent with the MSRA requirement and revised NS1 guidelines, by the relevant statutory deadlines. NMFS previously issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (68 FR 7492, February 14, 2003), and a proposed rule (70 FR 36240, June 22, 2005), to revise the NS1 guidelines. NMFS did not issue a final rule because it decided to wait to see if the Magnuson-Stevens Act would be reauthorized before revising the NS1 guidelines. This action is not expected to make the full set of revisions to the NS1 guidelines as was proposed in 2005, because of the urgency to establish guidance related to new provisions in the MSRA. Issues Under Consideration In considering potential guidance related to MSRA's overfishing provisions, NMFS has identified the following list of issues related to ACLs, AMs, and overfishing. NMFS seeks public comment on the scope of this NOI generally and the list of issues and potential alternatives for this action set forth below. Issues for Developing Guidance for ACLs and AMs • The role of the SSC and other peer review processes in setting ACLs and AMs • The relationship between ACL and OY • Revision of existing overfishing definitions to include OFL • Variability in data currently available for each stock (e.g., data rich, data poor, and stocks with data quality falling between data rich and data poor) • Setting ACLs for stocks with unknown status • Circumstances in which a numerical ACL can not be set for a stock, and in such situations, recommendations for adequate and appropriate alternatives to setting a numerical ACL (e.g., prohibitions) • Setting ACLs for stock complexes, stock assemblages, and similar stock groupings • Variability in the accuracy of management approaches in achieving target fishing levels • Setting a buffer between ACL and OFL to prevent overfishing, and how to determine the size of the buffer needed • Establishing the appropriate probability that an ACL will prevent overfishing for a stock • Establishing recommendations for inseason management authority and methods to be used as AMs to prevent overfishing • Limiting the extent of overfishing, should it occur • Establishing corrective actions to ensure accountability in a subsequent year for an overage of the OFL for a stock in a previous year • Establishing AMs for various sectors of a stock, if an ACL is subdivided for a stock, and the need to still prevent exceeding the overall OFL for the stock Preliminary ACL and AM alternatives • No action. Do not publish ACL and AM guidelines. Councils are statutorily required to implement ACLs and AMs, but the statute provides little specificity about the meaning of these terms. Without guidelines, Councils may develop and submit FMP amendments that the Secretary determines to be inadequate. Secretarial disapproval of an FMP amendment will require the Council to modify their amendment and resubmit it, making it unlikely that measures can be implemented by the statutory deadline of 2010, for stocks subject to overfishing and 2011, for all other stocks. • Alternative 2. Develop ACL and AM guidelines that provide performance standards that ACLs and AMs must meet, but do not provide guidance on specific mechanisms. Performance standards may be hard to develop, or it may be hard to adequately judge the degree to which proposed mechanisms will satisfy the performance standards. • Alternative 3. Develop ACL and AM guidelines that provide performance standards that ACLs must meet, and develop ACL and AM guidelines that provide specific guidance on one or more mechanisms to implementing ACLs and AMs that NMFS considers to meet the statutory requirement and the standards for Secretarial approval. Special Accommodations The public meeting to be held in NMFS Silver Spring headquarters on March 9, 2007, will be accessible to people with physical disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mark Millikin (301-713-2341), by March 4, 2007. Dated: February 9, 2007. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 07-681 Filed 2-9-07; 2:12 pm]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

U.S. Code

CFR