Notices. Notice

13,087 words·~59 min read·/register/2007/08/08/07-3881·

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

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* West Coast Community Economic Data Collection. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 2,931. *Number of Respondents:* 1,115. *Average Hours per Response:* Business survey, 45 minutes; household survey, 30 minutes; visitor pre-questionnaire, 5 minutes; and visitor questionnaire, 15 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)proposes to collect information pertaining to the economic utilization of marine resources by coastal communities on the West Coast that will improve fishery management; satisfy legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, Title 16 of the Magnuson Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ); and quantify achievement of the performances measures in the NMFS Strategic Operating Plans. To this end, economic data from eight representative small-to medium-sized communities will be surveyed to determine the communities' economic structure and utilization of marine resources. Households, businesses, and visitors to the communities will be surveyed as to their regional economic impact in the community. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business or other for profit organizations. *Frequency:* One-time only. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov.* ) Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number

(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: August 2, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-15395 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* 2007 Business Expenses Supplement to the Annual Wholesale and Retail Trade Surveys. *Form Number(s):* SA-42A(SUP), SA-42(ESUP), SA-44(ASUP), SA-44(ESUP), SA-45(ASUP), SA-45(ESUP), SA-721A(SUP), SA-721E(SUP), SA-722A(SUP), SA-722E(SUP). *Agency Approval Number:* None. *Type of Request:* New collection. *Burden Hours:* 76,580. *Number of Respondents:* 28,363. *Average Hours per Response:* 2.7 hours. *Needs and Uses:* The 2007 Business Expenses Supplement

(BES)will supplement basic economic statistics produced by the 2007 Economic Census of Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, and Accommodation and Food Services Industries with estimates of detailed operating expenses. Further, it will provide measures of value produced for wholesale trade and retail trade. Essential measurement of the Nation's economy requires compilation of comprehensive and reliable data on both economic outputs (e.g., sales) and inputs (e.g., utilities and advertising expenses). This supplement is the sole source of comprehensive expenses input data for covered industries. The Census Bureau will collect the information by means of a mail canvass with electronic reporting option directed to a sample of business units that represent one or more domestic establishments in covered industries. Results will be presented primarily in electronic reports containing statistical summaries by industry for the United States. This information collection is part of the 2007 Economic Census, which is required by law under Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.). Section 131 of this statute directs the taking of a census of businesses, including the distributive trades, service establishments, and transportation, at 5-year intervals. Section 224 makes reporting mandatory. Section 193 authorizes surveys that collect supplementary statistics related to the main topic of the censuses. Finally, Section 195 permits the use of statistical sampling methods. Information on business operating expenses was compiled in the 2002 Business Expenses Survey covering wholesale distributors, retail trade, accommodation and food services, and selected service industries. Data on operating expenses for selected service industries are currently compiled by the Census Bureau's Service Annual Survey. The economic census is a primary source of facts about the structure and functioning of the Nation's economy. It provides essential information for government, industry, business, and the general public. For the 2007 Business Expenses Supplement, the Federal government is the primary user of the resulting data. In particular, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the Federal agency that produces gross domestic product

(GDP)estimates and maintains the national economic accounts. The benchmark input-output (I-O) accounts at BEA use the BES data to produce national estimates of value added, gross output, and intermediate inputs. These national estimates serve as a benchmark for the annual industry accounts, which provide the control totals for the GDP-by-state accounts. Additionally, data from the benchmark I-O and annual I-O accounts are used by the GDP-by-state accounts to remove purchased services from Census Bureau source data on manufacturing, mining, and construction because BEA's concept of value added excludes such services. Previously, BEA's GDP-by-state accounts used only the national benchmark I-O table as a source for the purchased services. BEA recently made advances in its annual I-O accounts program, enhancing the reliability of those statistics. Thus, the GDP-by-state estimates now incorporate the purchased services as measured by both the annual and benchmark I-O accounts. The U.S. Federal Reserve Board, in turn, uses the BEA's national accounts for analyzing productivity trends and industry-level price changes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the data for measurement of industry productivity. The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture uses the data for analysis of national food marketing systems. Industry, business, and academia use the data for evaluating value added and profit margins occurring within the business sector. A specific objective of this supplement is to continue implementation of recommendations made in the Gross National Product Data Improvement Project (Creamer) Report (the Advisory Committee on Gross National Product Data Improvement, 1977), prepared under the auspices of the Office of Management and Budget; recommendations made in the Boskin Report on the Quality of Economic Statistics (President's Council of Economic Advisers, 1983); the (“Mid-Decade Strategic Review of BEA's Economic Accounts” (Survey of Current Business, February 1995); and recommendations of BEA's advisory council. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* One-time. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 131, 193, 195, and 224. *OMB Desk Officer:* Brian Harris-Kojetin,

(202)395-7314. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer, either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *bharrisk@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: August 2, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-15399 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Institutional Remittances to Foreign Countries ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before 5 p.m. October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, or via e-mail at *dHynek@doc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Mann, Chief, Current Account Services Branch, Balance of Payments Division (BE-58), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; phone:

(202)606-9573; fax:

(202)606-5314; or via e-mail at *michael.mann@bea.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Bureau of Economic Analysis

(BEA)is responsible for the compilation of the U.S. international transactions accounts (ITA's), which it publishes quarterly in news releases, on its Web site, and in its monthly journal, the Survey of Current Business. These accounts provide a statistical summary of all U.S. international transactions and, as such, are one of the major statistical products of BEA. They are used extensively by both government and private organizations for national and international economic policy formulation and for analytical purposes. The information collected in this survey is used to develop the “private remittances” portion of the ITA's. Without this information, an integral component of the ITA's would be omitted. No other Government agency collects comprehensive data on private institutional remittances of funds to foreign countries. The survey requests information from U.S. religious, charitable, educational, scientific, and similar organizations on transfers to foreign residents and organizations and their expenditures in foreign countries. The information is collected on a quarterly basis from organizations remitting $1 million or more each year and annually for organizations remitting at least $100,000 but less than $1 million each year. Organizations with remittances of less than $100,000 in the year covered by the report are exempt from reporting. The survey is voluntary. BEA proposes the following changes to the form and instructions:

(1)Increase the reporting threshold from $25,000 to $100,000;

(2)request that organizations only report by country if amounts remitted to a particular country exceed $10,000; and

(3)update the list of pre-printed countries on the form and add space for respondents to enter information on remittances to countries that do not appear on the pre-printed list. The overall respondent burden will not change. II. Method of Collection Survey forms are mailed to potential respondents in January of each year; respondents expected to file on a quarterly basis are sent multiple copies. Quarterly reports are due 30 days after the close of each calendar or fiscal quarter and annual reports are due 90 days after the close of the calendar or fiscal year. Potential respondents are U.S. religious, charitable, educational, scientific, and similar organizations that voluntarily agree to provide data regarding transfers to foreign residents and organizations and their expenditures in foreign countries. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0608-0002. *Form Number:* BE-40. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 790. *Estimated Time per Response:* 1.5 hours annually for respondents filing annually; and 6 hours annually for respondents filing quarterly. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 2,100. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $84,000. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Bretton Woods Agreement Act, Section 8, and E.O. 10033, as amended. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: August 2, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-15400 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-EA-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Technical Data Letter of Explanation ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison, Department of Commerce, Room 6622, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The technical data letters of explanation will assure BIS that U.S.-origin technical data will be exported only for authorized end-uses, users and destinations. The letters also places the foreign consignee on notice that the technical data is subject to U.S. export controls and may only be reexported in accordance with U.S. law. II. Method of Collection Submitted on paper or electronically. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0694-0047. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business or other for-profit organizations, and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 5,050. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 30 minutes to 2 hours, depending on the required document. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 8,807. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, the public is encouraged to provide suggestions on how to reduce and/or consolidate the current frequency of reporting. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: August 2, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-15398 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-813] Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit

(CPF)from Thailand for the period of review

(POR)July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. The review covers two respondents, Vita Food Factory

(1989)Ltd.

(Vita)and Tropical Food Industries Co. Ltd. (Trofco). The domestic interested party for this proceeding is Maui Pineapple Company Ltd. (petitioner). The Department preliminarily determines that Vita and Trofco made sales to the United States at less than normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on entries of Vita's and Trofco's merchandise during the POR. The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled “Preliminary Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo or Douglas Kirby, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2371 or

(202)482-3782, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published the antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand on July 18, 1995. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand* , 60 FR 36775 (July 18, 1995) ( *Antidumping Duty Order* ). On July 3, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). The Department received a request for review from Vita, by the July 31, 2006 deadline and therefore, on August 30, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand for Vita. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). Trofco also submitted a request for review, but Trofco's review request was not received by the Department until after the deadline for requesting an administrative review. However, the record of this proceeding shows that if not for an error by the express delivery service, Trofco's review request would have been received by the Department on or before the July 31, 2006 deadline. Therefore, on October 10, 2006 the Department initiated a review for Trofco. For further discussion on this issue, *see Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand* , 71 FR 59430 (October 10, 2006). On August 14, 2006, the Department issued sections A through E of the questionnaire to Vita. 1 Vita submitted its section A response on September 12, 2006, and submitted its sections B through D response on September 27, 2006. The Department issued a sections A through D supplemental questionnaire on February 6, 2007, and Vita responded on February 20, 2007. On April 13, 2007, the Department issued a second sections A through D supplemental questionnaire to Vita; Vita responded on April 25, 2007. Finally, on May 18, 2007, the Department issued a third sections A through D supplemental questionnaire to Vita, and Vita responded on May 30, 2007. 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. On October 12, 2006, the Department issued sections A through E of the questionnaire to Trofco. Trofco submitted its section A questionnaire response on October 17, 2006, and submitted its responses to sections B and C on November 15, 2006. The Department issued a sections A through C supplemental questionnaire on January 29, 2007, and Trofco responded on February 12, 2007. On May 18, 2007 the Department issued a second sections A through C supplemental questionnaire and Trofco responded on May 24, 2007. On November 27, 2006 the petitioner filed an allegation of sales below the cost of production for Trofco. On December 14, 2006 the Department initiated a cost investigation. Trofco submitted its section D response on December 28, 2006. *See* “Cost of Production Analysis” *infra* for further discussion. On January 31, 2006, the Department issued a section D supplemental questionnaire to Trofco. Trofco responded on February 20, 2007. On March 26, 2007 the Department issued a second section D supplemental questionnaire, and Trofco responded on April 4, 2007. A third and fourth section D supplemental questionnaire were issued on May 2 and May 16, 2007, respectively, and Trofco submitted its responses on May 10 and May 22, 2007. On November 15, 2006, the petitioner submitted deficiency comments on sections A through D of Vita's questionnaire responses. On November 21, 2006, the petitioner submitted deficiency comments on Trofco's section A questionnaire response. On January 18, 2007, and April 12, 2007, respectively, the petitioner submitted deficiency comments and a rebuttal to Trofco's section D questionnaire responses. *See* Cost of Production Analysis infra for further discussion. On March 30, 2007, the Department, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review by 120 days from April 2, 2007 until no later than July 31, 2007. *See Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 15101 (March 30, 2007). Verification On March 27, 2007, the petitioner submitted a timely letter requesting that the Department conduct verification of Vita's and Trofco's questionnaire responses pursuant to section 782(i)(3)(A) of the Act. The Department intends to conduct a sales and cost verification of Vita and a sales verification of Trofco following the preliminary results of this review. From June 20 through June 26, 2007, the Department conducted a cost verification of Trofco. For the results and analysis of Trofco's cost verification, *see Memorandum from Ernest Z. Gziryan, Senior Accountant to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, Verification of the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted by Tropical Food Industries Co. Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand (Trofco Cost Verification Report)* (July 31, 2007) on file in room B-099, the Central Records Unit of the main Commerce building (CRU). Period of Review This review covers the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is CPF, defined as pineapple processed and/or prepared into various product forms, including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is packed and cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. CPF is currently classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-based syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar (i.e., juice-packed). Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. There have been no scope rulings for the subject order. Less than Fair Value Analysis To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price

(EP)to NV, as described in the “U.S. Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all products produced by respondents that are covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, and that were sold in the comparison market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and

(C)of the Act, where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the Department's antidumping questionnaires. Date of Sale It is the Department's practice to use invoice date as the date of sale. However, 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that the Secretary may use a date other than the invoice date if the Secretary is satisfied that the material terms of the sale were established on some other date. *See Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 127 F. Supp. 2d 207, 217-219 (CIT 2000). Both Vita and Trofco reported invoice date as the date of sale for all sales in both the comparison and U.S. markets. After analyzing the responses of both parties and the sample sales documents provided, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale for all sales under review. U.S. Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we use EP when the subject merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, and constructed export price

(CEP)was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. As discussed below, we conclude that all of Vita's and Trofco's U.S. sales are EP sales. *Vita* : Vita identified all of its U.S. sales as EP sales in its questionnaire responses. The Department based the price of each of Vita's U.S. sales of subject merchandise on EP, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, or to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. In accordance with section 772

(a)and

(c)of the Act, we calculated EP using the prices Vita charged for packed subject merchandise shipped FOB. We made deductions for movement expenses, including, where applicable, charges for transportation, terminal handling, container stuffing, bill of lading preparation, customs clearance, and legal and port fees documentation. *See Analysis Memorandum for Vita Food Factory

(1989)Co., Ltd., (Vita Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* ) dated concurrently with this notice. Vita reported post-sale, post-POR price adjustments in its September 12, 2006, section A questionnaire response. In addition, Vita explained that the company did not revise its sales contracts and other related sales documents for these reported post-sale billing adjustments. The Department asked in a supplemental questionnaire to Vita why no revisions to the sales documentation were made for the reported post-sale billing adjustments. Vita explained that it is its normal practice to make post-sale billing adjustments through discussions by telephone with its customers without revisions to sales documentation. *See* Vita 1st Supplemental Questionnaire at 9. Because Vita was unable to provide any documentation demonstrating that there were actual price adjustments, we did not make any adjustments to EP for these claimed post-sale price adjustments. *See Corus Engineering Steels Ltd. v. United States* , (Slip Op. 2003-110, 2003 CIT Lexis 110) (CIT August 27, 2003) at 11 (“The burden of proof is upon the claimant to prove entitlement.''). Moreover, Vita reported similar post-sale billing adjustments in the most recent review and the Department did not include these adjustments in the calculation of EP. *See Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (10th Review Preliminary Results)* 71 FR 44256, 44258 (August 4, 2006), unchanged in *Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, (10th Review Final Results)* 71 FR 70948 (December 7, 2006) and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at *Comment 1* . *Trofco* : Trofco identified all of its U.S. sales as EP sales in its questionnaire responses. The Department based the price of each of Trofco's U.S. sales of subject merchandise on EP, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, or to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. In accordance with sections 772

(a)and

(c)of the Act, we calculated EP using the prices Trofco charged for packed subject merchandise shipped FOB, from which we made deductions for movement expenses, including, where applicable, charges for transportation, terminal handling, container stuffing, bill of lading preparation, Customs clearance, and legal and port fees documentation. *See Analysis Memorandum for Tropical Food Industries Co, Ltd., (Trofco Preliminary Analysis Memorandum)* dated concurrently with this notice. Normal Value In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the comparison market, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the EP sale. See “Level of Trade” section below. After testing comparison market viability and whether comparison market sales were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV for Vita and Trofco as discussed in the following sections. Home Market Viability In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product normally should be greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise. *See also* 19 CFR 351.404(b). *Vita* : Because the aggregate volume of Vita's home market sales of foreign like product is less than five percent of the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we based NV on sales of the foreign like product in a country other than Vita's home market. *See* section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Specifically, we based NV for Vita on sales of the foreign like product in Germany. The Department selected Germany because sales to Vita's largest third-country market (the Netherlands) were largely trans-shipments to ultimate customers located in Germany. In addition, the product similarity for CPF sold to Germany and to the U.S. was superior *vis-a-vis* the product similarity for the Netherlands and the United States. *See* “Cost of Production Analysis” *infra* for further discussion. *Trofco* : Trofco's home market sales were greater than five percent as compared to the aggregate volume of U.S. sales during the POR. Therefore, Trofco's volume of sales in the home market during the POR was sufficient to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV. Cost of Production

(COP)Analysis *Vita* : In the most recently completed administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand, the Department determined that Vita sold foreign-like product in its comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the product and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. *See 10th Review Preliminary Results* and *10th Review Final Results* . Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that during the current POR, Vita sold the foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the product and instituted a below cost inquiry as to Vita's sales in the comparison market. 2 *Compare Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 62951, 62954 (October 9, 2002) (unchanged in final results 68 FR 7503 ) *with Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 11259, 11263-64 (February 23, 2001) (unchanged in final results 66 FR 45664 ) for an example where the Department instituted a below cost inquiry under section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act based on a below cost finding in the most recently completed administrative review and the recently completed administrative review was based on a different comparison market than the on-going administrative review. 2 In addition, the Department notes that on May 15, 2007, petitioner submitted a request that a cost investigation be initiated by the Department with respect to sales of CPF by Vita to Germany during the POR. *Trofco* : On November 27, 2007, petitioner alleged that Trofco made home market sales of CPF at prices below the cost of production during the POR. The Department found a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that Trofco's sales in Thailand were at prices below the COP and accordingly initiated a cost investigation for the current review. *See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, from The Team on Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd* , (December 14, 2006). We relied on the COP data submitted by Trofco in its cost questionnaire responses with the following exceptions:

(1)We revised the reported net realizable values (“NRV”) which Trofco used to allocate pineapple fruit cost to pineapple solid and pineapple juice products to account for the separately identifiable costs incurred to produce each product;

(2)we revised the reported financial expense rate to include the net foreign exchange gains and losses; and

(3)we adjusted the cost of sales denominator used to calculate the general and administrative and financial expense rates to remove packing expenses. Our revisions to Trofco's COP data are discussed in the Memorandum from Ernest Z. Gziryan, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results,” dated concurrently with this notice. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market with model-specific COP figures in the POR. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and financial expenses and packing. In our sales-below-cost analysis, we used comparison market sales and COP information provided by Vita and Trofco in their questionnaire responses. *See* Vita's September 27, 2006 section D questionnaire response; *see also* Trofco's December 28, 2007 section D questionnaire response. Results of COP Test We compared the weighted-average COPs to comparison market sales of the foreign-like product, consistent with section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. *See also* 19 CFR 351.404(b). In determining whether to disregard comparison market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made

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

(2)at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act. 3 On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to comparison market prices, less any movement charges, discounts and rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses. *See Treatment of Adjustments and Selling Expenses in Calculating the Cost of Production (“COP”) and Constructed Value (“CV”)* Import Policy Bulletin (March 25, 1994) on file in the CRU, which can also be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. 3 Section 773(b)(2)(ii)(B-C) of the Act defines extended period of time as a period that is normally 1 year, but not less than 6 months, and substantial quantities as sales made at prices below the cost of production that have been made in substantial quantities if

(i)The volume of such sales represents 20 percent or more of the volume of sales under consideration for the determination of normal value, or

(ii)the weighted average per unit price of the sales under consideration for the determination of normal value is less than the weighted average per unit cost of production for such sales. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales when:

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

(C)of the Act and;

(2)based on our comparison of prices to average COPs in the POR, we determined that the below-cost prices would not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Price-to-Price Comparisons For those product comparisons for which there were comparison market sales of like product in the ordinary course of trade, we based NV on comparison market prices to affiliated (when made at prices determined to be arms-length) or unaffiliated parties, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act. We made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CRF 351.411 as well as for differences in direct selling expenses, in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We relied on our model match criteria in order to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product based on the reported physical characteristics of the subject merchandise. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. *See* section 771(16) of the Act. *Vita* : When comparing Vita comparison market sales to its EP sales, the Department calculated Vita's NV (shipped FOB, CNF or FAS) NV based on its gross unit price in Germany to unaffiliated customers. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses ( *i.e.* , inland freight, ocean freight and warehousing), when appropriate. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act, we deducted comparison market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we deducted comparison market direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , credit, warranty) and added U.S. direct selling expenses. We made the appropriate adjustment for commissions paid in the home market pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c). We made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other, the “commission offset.” Specifically, where commissions are incurred in one market, but not in the other, we will limit the amount of such allowance to the amount of either the selling expenses incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less. *Trofco* : The Department calculated Trofco's NV based on its gross unit price to unaffiliated customers less billing adjustments pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses ( *i.e.* , inland freight and warehousing), when appropriate. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act, we deducted comparison market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we deducted comparison market direct selling expenses (i.e., credit) and added U.S. direct selling expenses. We made the appropriate adjustment for commissions paid in the home market pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and19 CFR 351.410(c). We made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other, the “commission offset.” Specifically, where commissions are incurred in one market, but not in the other, we will limit the amount of such allowance to the amount of either the selling expenses incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less. Price to Constructed Value Comparisons In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used constructed value

(CV)as the basis for NV when we could not determine NV because there were no above-cost contemporaneous sales of identical or similar merchandise in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, including the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the comparison market. Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, SG&A expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. *Vita* : We used CV as the basis for NV for sales in which there were no usable contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We added reported materials, labor, and factory overhead costs to derive the cost of manufacture (COM), in accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act. We then added interest expenses, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing expenses to derive the CV (and added U.S. credit expenses for comparison to EP), in accordance with sections 773(e)(2) and

(3)of the Act. We calculated profit based on the total value of sales and total COP reported by Vita in its questionnaire response, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Finally, we deducted comparison market credit expenses from CV and added U.S. credit to calculate the foreign unit price in dollars (FUPDOL), pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. *Trofco* : We used CV as the basis for NV for sales in which there were no usable contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We added reported materials, labor, and factory overhead costs, adjusted as shown in the COP Analysis section above, to derive the cost of manufacture (COM), in accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act. We then added interest expenses adjusted as shown in the COP Analysis section above, SG&A expenses adjusted as shown in the COP Analysis section above, profit, and U.S. packing expenses to derive the CV, in accordance with sections 773(e)(2) and

(3)of the Act. Based on the information currently on the record, all of Trofco's sales in Thailand failed the COP test and therefore were outside the ordinary course of trade; hence, we cannot determine selling expenses or profit under section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act sets forth three alternatives:

(i)Selling expense and profit may be calculated based on “actual amounts incurred by the specific exporter or producer of merchandise in the same general category” as subject merchandise;

(ii)may be calculated based on “the weighted average of the actual amounts incurred and realized by {other} exporters or producers that are subject to the investigation”; or

(iii)“any other reasonable method,” with limits on the “profit cap.” For this review, the Department is calculating CV profit based on the amounts earned by Trofco on its home market sales of canned fruit other than pineapple ( *i.e.* , profit on sales of the same general category of merchandise as subject canned pineapple fruit under section 773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act). For selling expenses, we cannot use alternative

(i)because we do not have the information on Trofco's other canned fruit sales (other than pineapple) which we consider to be in the same general category of merchandise as subject canned pineapple fruit. In addition, we cannot use alternative

(ii)without violating our responsibility to protect respondent's administrative protective order

(APO)information, because Vita is the only other respondent in this review. Therefore, for selling expenses, we are using alternative

(iii)'any other reasonable method;' and basing Trofco's CV selling expenses on its reported home market sales. Therefore, we deducted home market credit expenses from CV and added U.S. credit to calculate the foreign unit price in dollars (FUPDOL), pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. Level Of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same LOT as the EP or CEP sale. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) ( *South African Plate Final* ). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the chain of distribution), 4 including selling functions, 5 class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. 4 The marketing process in the United States and in the comparison markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered the narrative responses of each respondent to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. 5 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, technical service, freight and delivery, and inventory maintenance. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home market or third-country prices), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. With respect to CEP sales, the Department removes the selling activities set forth in section 772(d) of the Act from the CEP starting price prior to performing its LOT analysis. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As such, for CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the sales, as adjusted under section 772(d) of the Act. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP sale, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. However, in this case, the Department preliminarily determines that no level of trade adjustment was necessary for Trofco and Vita, consistent with what the parties reported in their respective questionnaire responses. For further details on the Department's LOT analysis, *see Vita Preliminary Analysis Memorandum and Trofco Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.* Currency Conversion In accordance with section 773A of the Act, we made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. *See also* 19 CFR 351.415. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin Vita Food Factory

(1989)Ltd. 7.11 % Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd. 10.51 % Cash Deposit Requirements If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided in section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for Vita will be that established in the final results of this review;

(2)the cash deposit rate for Trofco will be that established in the final results of this review;

(3)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

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

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and 5) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous proceeding conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 24.64 percent. *See Antidumping Duty Order* 71 FR at 36776. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Duty Assessment Upon publication of the final results of this review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and the total entered value of the examined sales. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries of the respective importers made during the POR if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) ( *Assessment Policy Notice* ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in the final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to any party to the proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)A statement of the issues;

(2)a brief summary of the argument; and

(3)a table of authorities. *See* 19 CFR 309(c)(2). Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should contain

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

(2)the number of participants; and,

(3)a list of issues to be raised. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review within 120 days after the publication of this notice, unless extended. *See* section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.213(h). Notification to Importers This notice also 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. The preliminary results of this administrative review and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15489 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-803) Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-6312 or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results and partial rescission of the 2005-2006 antidumping duty administrative review of heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles (Hand Tools), from the People's Republic of China

(PRC)on March 8, 2007. *See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 10492 (March 8, 2007). We received a case brief from respondent Shandong Machinery Import & Export Company

(SMC)on April 9, 2007. Separate rebuttal briefs were received from both petitioners, Ames True Temper

(Ames)and Council Tool Company (Council Tools) on April 16, 2007. On April 24, 2007, we placed on the record certain documents received from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). *See* Memorandum to the File from Mark Flessner, Case Analyst, entitled “Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China (A-580-803): U.S. Entry Documents and Opportunity to Comment,” dated April 24, 2007. SMC, Ames, and Council Tools filed comments concerning these CBP documents on May 9, 2007. SMC requested and was granted time to file a rebuttal to the Ames and Council Tools comments; SMC's rebuttal was received on May 16, 2007. On July 6, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of extension for the final results. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 36959 (July 6, 2007). This partially extended the time limit for the final results until August 6, 2007. Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1), the Department shall issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Tariff Act further provides that the Department shall issue the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published in the **Federal Register** . However, if the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) allow the Department to extend the 245-day period to 365 days and the 120-day period to 180 days. Due to the addition of important new information to the record, the complexity of the issues involved, and the time required to analyze the numerous submissions and arguments raised in parties' briefs, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete these reviews within the period of the partial extension indicated by the **Federal Register** notice published on July 6, 2007. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) allow the Department to extend the deadline for the final results of a review to a maximum of 180 days from the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published. The current deadline for the final results is August 6, 2007. For the reasons noted above, the Department is fully extending the time limit for the completion of the final results for the 2005-2006 antidumping duty administrative review of Hand Tools from the PRC until no later than September 4, 2007, which is 180 days from the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: August 2, 2007. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15478 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-808] Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New-Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1757 and

(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 20, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of a new-shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India for Sunflag Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (Sunflag). *See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New-Shipper Review* , 72 FR 13088 (March 20, 2007). The period of review is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. The preliminary results of this new-shipper review are currently due no later than September 9, 2007. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that the Department will issue the preliminary results of a new-shipper review of an antidumping duty order within 180 days after the date on which the review is initiated. The Act provides further that, if the case is extraordinarily complicated, the Department may extend the 180-day period to 300 days. The Department has determined that this new-shipper review is extraordinarily complicated and it is not possible to complete the preliminary results by the current deadline of September 9, 2007. Specifically, there are a number of complex factual issues pertaining to the sales practices, manufacturing costs, and the determination of potential comparison-market matches which affect the calculation of the antidumping margin in this new-shipper review. We require additional time to analyze the questionnaire responses, issue supplemental questionnaires, and conduct verification. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the Department is extending the time limit for the preliminary results by 40 days to October 19, 2007. The final results of the new-shipper review continue to be due 90 days after the date of issuance of the preliminary results of new-shipper review. We are issuing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 2, 2007. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15481 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NOAA Public Awareness and Outreach Evaluation Program AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patricia Huff, 301-713-1127 or *patricia.huff@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA)plans to collect information needed to assess the understanding and awareness of NOAA and its programs among the general public, especially as it relates to the collection and dissemination of scientific, operational, and life-saving data. NOAA's mission includes understanding and predicting changes in the Earth's environment; being an international leader in changing the way integrated environmental observations and information are captured, managed, stored, shared, and used to benefit the world; and protecting life and property. NOAA will consider the findings in tailoring its outreach activities and to provide statistical basis for measuring the utilization of tax-funded data products. Respondents will be a cross-section of the U.S. population. II. Method of Collection NOAA will survey respondents electronically via the Internet. Sixteen one-hour focus groups will also be conducted with small groups of respondents in person. III. Data *OMB Number:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 4,110. *Estimated Time per Response:* 20 minutes per electronic survey; one hour per focus group participant. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,333. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(OCRM)announces its intent to evaluate the performance of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The Coastal Zone Management Program evaluation will be conducted pursuant to section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended

(CZMA)and regulations at 15 CFR part 923, subpart L. The CZMA requires continuing review of the performance of states with respect to coastal program implementation. Evaluation of a Coastal Management Program requires findings concerning the extent to which a state has met the national objectives, adhered to its Coastal Management Program document approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance awards funded under the CZMA. Each evaluation will include a site visit, consideration of public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. A public meeting will be held as part of the site visit. Notice is hereby given of the dates of the site visit for the listed evaluation, and the date, local time, and location of the public meeting during the site visit. *Date and Time:* The Alaska Coastal Management Program evaluation site visit will be held August 13-18, 2007. The public meeting will be held on Monday, August 13, 2007, at 4 p.m. at the Department of Natural Resources Office of Project Management and Permitting, 302 Gold Street, Suite 202, Juneau, Alaska. Members of the public may also participate in the public meeting via teleconference by calling 1-800-315-6338. The call-in code is 1111#. ADDRESSES: Copies of a state's most recent performance reports, as well as OCRM's evaluation notification and supplemental information request letters to the state, are available upon request from OCRM. Written comments from interested parties regarding this Program are encouraged and will be accepted until 15 days after the public meeting held for the Program. Please direct written comments to Ralph Cantral, Chief, National Policy and Evaluation Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 10th Floor, N/ORM7, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. When the evaluation is completed, OCRM will place a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given of the availability of the final evaluation findings for the Massachusetts Coastal Management Program

(CMP)and the Chesapeake Bay-Virginia National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR). Sections 312 and 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, require a continuing review of the performance of coastal states with respect to approval of CMPs and the operation and management of NERRs. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was found to be implementing and enforcing its federally approved coastal management program, addressing the national coastal management objectives identified in CZMA Section 303(2)(A)-(K), and adhering to the programmatic terms of its financial assistance awards. The Chesapeake Bay-Virginia NERR was found to be adhering to programmatic requirements of the NERR System. *Copies of these final evaluation findings may be obtained upon written request from:* Ralph Cantral, Chief, National Policy and Evaluation Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 10th Floor, N/ORM7, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or *Ralph.Cantral@noaa.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralph Cantral, Chief, National Policy and Evaluation Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 10th Floor, N/ORM7, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910,

(301)563-7118. Dated: August 2, 2007. David M. Kennedy, Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15487 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent to conduct a natural resource damage assessment at the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site in New Jersey. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, acting as the lead administrative trustee on behalf of itself and the U.S. Department of the Interior, collectively acting as Federal natural resource trustees (Federal Trustees), have concluded their preliminary investigation of potential injuries to natural resources under their trusteeship that may have occurred as the result of releases of hazardous substances at or from the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (ASite@). Pursuant to 43 CFR 11, the Federal Trustees have completed a Preassessment Screen (“PAS”). The Federal Trustees made the determination to perform a natural resource damage assessment for the Site. Notice letters have been issued to potentially responsible parties

(PRPs)to participate in the development and performance of this assessment, and in its funding. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PRPs that are being noticed are requested to provide a response within 30 calendar days of receipt of their notice letters, stating whether they wish to participate in this process. PRPs are asked to send responses to: Eli Reinharz, NOAA Assessment and Restoration Division, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORR3, SSMC#4, Room 10342, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910-3281. For further information regarding the notice letters, please feel free to contact Eli Reinharz

(NOAA)at

(301)713-4248 ext.193, *eli.reinharz@noaa.gov* , or Tim Kubiak

(FWS)at

(609)646-9310, *tim_kubiak@fws.gov.* Legal questions should be addressed to Linda Burlington

(NOAA)at

(301)713-1332, *linda.b.burlington@noaa.gov* , or Mark Barash

(DOI)at

(617)527-2103, *r5mbarash@gmail.com* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please be advised that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, acting as the lead administrative trustee on behalf of itself and the U. S. Department of the Interior, collectively acting as Federal natural resource trustees (Federal Trustees), have concluded their preliminary investigation of potential injuries to natural resources under their trusteeship that may have occurred as the result of releases of hazardous substances at or from the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (ASite@). Pursuant to 43 CFR part 11, the Federal Trustees have completed a Preassessment Screen (“PAS”). The complete PAS may be found at *http://www.darrp.noaa/gov/northeast/passaic/injury.html* . The two agencies cited serve as Federal Trustees under authority of Subpart G of the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR 300.600(b)(1-3), and 300.605. *Information gathered and presented in the PAS forms the basis of the Federal Trustees—conclusion that the following criteria are met* : 1. A release of a hazardous substance has occurred. 2. Natural resources for which the Federal Trustees may assert trusteeship under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) are or are likely to be adversely affected by the release. 3. The quantity and concentration of the released hazardous substances are sufficient to potentially cause injury to natural resources for which the Trustees may assert trusteeship under CERCLA. 4. Data sufficient to pursue a natural resource damage assessment are available or likely to be obtained at a reasonable cost. 5. Currently implemented and planned response actions will not sufficiently remedy the injury to natural resources without further action. Based upon the above findings, the Federal Trustees made the determination to perform a natural resource damage assessment for the Site, and have issued letters to those companies identified as PRPs in connection with the release of hazardous substances and the subsequent damages resulting from natural resource injury. The Notice of Intent to Perform an Assessment is provided pursuant to 43 CFR 11.32(a)(2)(iii)(A). Accordingly, PRPs are invited to participate in the development and performance of this assessment, and in its funding. Note that other PRPs are being noticed at this time, and the Federal Trustees may in the future also provide notices to additional PRPs as may be deemed appropriate. Dated: August 3, 2007. Ken Barton, Acting Director, Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15464 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Estuarine Research Reserve System AGENCY: Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period for the Revised Management Plan for the Great Bay (New Hampshire) National Estuarine Research Reserve. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce is announcing a thirty day public comment period on the revised Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan which will begin on the day this announcement is published. Comments should be sent within the comment period in hard copy or e-mail to Doris Grimm at *Doris.Grimm@noaa.gov* or NOAA's Estuarine Reserves Division, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, 10th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was designated in October 1989 pursuant to Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1461. Pursuant to 15 CFR 921.33(c), a state must revise its management plan every five years. The reserve has been operating under a management plan approved in 1989. The submission of this plan fulfills this requirement and sets a course for successful implementation of the goals and objectives of the reserve. Since the last management plan, the Great Bay Reserve has constructed needed facilities, increased its staff, changed its boundary, implemented several system-wide programs, and acquired key parcels of land. The original boundary included 4,471 acres of open water and salt marsh in Great Bay proper and 1,882 acres of upland. The boundary expansion includes 2,830 acres of additional open and salt marsh in Little Bay and several tidal rivers as well as 1,052 acres of upland. This expansion also includes all of the Federal lands under the Great Bay National Wildlife refuge that was established in 1992. The expanded boundary is a more comprehensive representation of the natural communities within the Southern Gulf of Maine province of the Acadian bio-geographic region of the United States. Great Bay serves as a natural field laboratory for researchers and the boundary expansion will increase and diversify the areas capable of supporting NERRS long-term research and monitoring, including opportunities for extensive upland research. The boundary expansion also increases the Reserve's opportunities for educating the public about the estuarine system. This new management plan serves as the primary guidance document for the operation of the Great Bay Reserve's core and system-wide programs in research and monitoring, education and coastal training, and resource management and stewardship. The plan provides guidance on the acquisition of land to be added to the Reserve and on the construction and renovation of buildings and exhibits that support NERR programs. It also guides the Reserve in important related programs, such as volunteerism and outreach to communities to encourage stewardship of coastal resources in the Great Bay area. The Great Bay Reserve is administered through the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. The Reserve is a part of the Marine Fisheries Division, which is based in Durham, New Hampshire. The Reserve also works closely with the New Hampshire Coastal Program and the New Hampshire Estuaries Project, as well as many other partners, such as the University of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, to meet its goals and objectives. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Grimm at

(301)563-7107 or Laurie McGilvray at

(301)563-1158 of NOAA's National Ocean Service, Estuarine Reserves Division, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, 10th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910. For copies of the Wells Management Plan revision, visit *http://www.reserve.org.* Dated: August 2, 2007. David M. Kennedy, Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15483 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Health Board

(DHB)Meeting AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 ( 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, and in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Public Law, the following meeting is announced: *Name of Committee:* Defense Health Board (DHB). *Dates:* September 19 and 20, 2007. *Times:* 8 a.m.-11:30 a.m. (Open Session). 12:30 p.m.-4:45 p.m. (Open Session). *Place of Meeting:* Holiday Inn Riverwalk, 217 N. St. Mary's Street, San Antonio, TX 78205. *Purpose of the Meeting:* The purpose of the meeting is to address and deliberate pending and new Board issues and provide briefings for Board members on topics related to ongoing Board business. *Agenda:* The Board will deliberate Pandemic Flu preparedness and the subcommittee recommendations, recruit Chlamydia screening efficacy, Army Action Plan to address wounded warriors' concerns, and discuss the DOD disability evaluation system, to include an overview and plans for reengineering the system. The status of the DOD response plan for Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder will be discussed. The Board will also receive an update from the Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care. The Board will conduct an administrative session on September 18, 2007, in the same location. The administrative session is closed to the public. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the Defense Health Board meeting from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on May 3, 2007 is open to the public. Any member of the public wishing to provide input to the Defense Health Board should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(C) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the procedures described in this notice. Written statement should be not longer than two type-written pages and must address the following detail: The issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included as needed to establish the appropriate historical context and to provide any necessary background information. Individuals submitting a written statement may submit their statement to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below at any point. However, if the written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, which is subject to this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the Defense Health Board until the next open meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Defense Health Board Chairperson, and ensure they are provided to members of the Defense Health Board before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the Chairperson and the Designated Federal Officer may choose to invite the submitter of the comments to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meting or at a future meeting. The Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Defense Health Board Chairperson, may, if desired, allot a specific amount of time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Defense Health Board. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colonel Roger L. Gibson, Executive Secretary, Defense Health Board, Five Skyline Place, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Room 810, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3206,

(703)681-3279, Ext. 123, Fax:

(703)681-3321, ( *roger.gibson@ha.osd.mil).* Additional information, agenda updates, and meeting registration are available online at the Defense Health Board Web site, *http://www.ha.osd.mil/dhb.* The public is encouraged to register for the meeting. Written statements may be mailed to the above address, e-mailed to *dhb@ha.osd.mil* or faxed to

(703)681-3321. Dated: August 3, 2007. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 07-3881 Filed 8-6-07; 11:39 am]

Connectionstraces to 19

Traces to 19 documents