Fed. Reg. Notices — Notice

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M 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:* South Pacific Tuna Act. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0218. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 199. *Number of Respondents:* 22. *Average Hours Per Response* License application, 15 minute; regional application/VMS registration, 45 minutes; purse seine transshipment logsheet, 1 hour; and unloading logsheet, 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration collects license, registration, catch, and unloading information from purse seine vessels fishing within a large region of the central and western Pacific Ocean governed by the Treaty of Fisheries between the governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the government of the United States of America. The information collected is required to meet obligations under the Treaty. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually and on occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *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: October 19, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20986 Filed 10-24-07; 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:* Bureau of Industry and Security. *Title:* Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Antiboycott Violations. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Control Number:* 0694-0132. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 1,280. *Number of Respondents:* 10. *Average Hours Per Response:* 10 to 600 hours. *Needs and Uses:* This collection of information supports enforcement of the Antiboycott provisions for the Export Administration Regulations

(EAR)by providing a method for industry to voluntarily self-disclose antiboycott violations. *Affected Public:* Business and other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* On occasion. *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 via the Internet at *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: October 19, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20989 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-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:* Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). *Title:* Five-Year Records Retention Period. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Control Number:* 0694-0096. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 251. *Number of Respondents:* 101,108. *Average Hours per Response:* 1 second to 1 minute per response. *Needs and Uses:* The Export Administration Regulations

(EAR)requires all parties involved in export transactions and the U.S. party involved in the boycott action maintain records of these transactions for a period of five years. The five-year retention period corresponds with the statute of limitations for violations and is necessary to preserve potential evidence for investigations. The requirement enables BIS to detect violations from records up to five years old to correspond with the five-year statute of limitations and prove that a violation did or did not take place. The documents can also provide exculpatory evidence for firms who have been accused of export control violations and are innocent. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *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 via the Internet at *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov.* Dated: October 19, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20990 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-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:* Southeast Region Dealer and Interview Family of Forms. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0013. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 1,835. *Number of Respondents:* 13,767. *Average Hours Per Response:* Interviews and quota-managed dealer reports, 10 minutes; dealer no-purchase reports, 3 minutes; rock shrimp, golden crab and coral dealer reports, 15 minutes; and vessel operational inventory, 5 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center uses these reporting instruments to collect landings statistics and quota monitoring data from commercial seafood dealers and to conduct interviews with fishermen for effort and fishing locations data. This family of forms includes data collection activities for monitoring fishery quotas, routine collections of monthly statistics from seafood dealers, and interviews with fishermen to collect catch/effort and biological data. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *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: October 19, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21027 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review 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 emergency provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). *Title:* NTIA Message Testing Focus Groups for the Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Coupon Program. *Agency Form Number:* None. *Type of Request:* Emergency submission. *Burden:* 352 hours. *Average Time Per Response:* 2 hours. *Needs and Uses:* Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration

(NTIA)to create and implement a program to provide coupons for consumers to purchase digital-to-analog converter boxes. ( *See* Title III of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, 21 (Feb. 8, 2006)). These converter boxes are necessary for consumers who wish to continue receiving broadcast programming over the air using analog-only television sets after February 18, 2009—the date that television stations are required by law to cease analog broadcasting. The regulations permit consumers to submit applications to NTIA for coupons beginning January 1, 2008. *See* 47 CFR 301.3(b). An effective consumer education campaign, including the development of a campaign identity, messages, and consumer materials, is essential to the Coupon Program. Of particular importance is the development of an application for consumers that is easy to understand and to submit to NTIA. In an effort to ensure that the materials and messages developed for the campaign resonate with all target audiences, these items will be tested with representatives from targeted audiences. The targeted audiences, identified as the more reliant on over-the-air television, include the following:

(1)Economically disadvantaged households;

(2)rural residents;

(3)minorities;

(4)people with disabilities; and

(5)seniors. Representatives from the target audiences will participate in “focus groups” to assist NTIA in determining the clarity of the message; identifying difficulty or ease in presenting and receiving pertinent information; and improving the presentation of the information. Nineteen

(19)focus groups are scheduled in eight cities and via teleconference. Five additional participants will be interviewed who are deaf or hard of hearing for a total number of 176 participants. The information will be collected by Ketchum, Inc., a global public relations firm, that is leading the consumer education program as a subcontractor to IBM, NTIA's prime contractor. NTIA awarded a contract to IMB in August 2007 to administer the diverse operational elements of the Coupon Program. The information will be used to develop a consumer application as well as other consumer education materials related to the Coupon Program. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* Jasmeet K. Seehra,

(202)395-3123. 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. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 7 days of publication of this notice to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number

(202)395-5167 or via the Internet at *Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov.* Dated: October 19, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21029 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-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:* Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). *Title:* Approval of Triangular Transactions involving Commodities covered by a U.S. Import Certificate. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Control Number:* 0694-0009. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 1. *Number of Respondents:* 1. *Average Hours per Response:* 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The triangular symbol will be stamped on the certificate as notification that the importer does not intend to import or retain the items in the country issuing the certificate, but that, in any case, the items will not be delivered to any other destination except in accordance with the Export Administration Regulations. If this procedure were not followed, strategic commodities could be delivered to unauthorized destinations. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *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 via the Internet at *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: October 19, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21031 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-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:* NOAA Space-Based Data Collection System

(DCS)Agreements. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0157. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 440. *Number of Respondents:* 390. *Average Hours per Response:* Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Data Collection System Use Agreement, 3 hours; Argos System Use Agreement, 1 hour. *Needs and Uses:* NOAA operates two space-based data collection systems (DCS): the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite

(GOES)DCS and the Argos DSC flown on polar-orbiting satellites. NOAA allows users access to the DCS if they meet certain criteria. The applicants must submit information to ensure they meet these criteria. NOAA does not approve agreements when commercial services are available that fulfill users' requirements. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; business or other for-profit organizations; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *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: October 19, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21032 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders to the Department of Defense AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, 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, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: To ensure consideration written comments must be submitted on or before December 24, 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 Chris Savage, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 7K071, Washington, DC 20233-6900,

(301)763-4832, or via the Internet at *John.C.Savage@census.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders

(M3)survey collects monthly data on shipments, inventories, and orders from domestic manufacturing companies. The purpose of the M3 survey is to provide early broad-based monthly statistical data on current economic conditions and indications of future production commitments in the manufacturing sector. The orders, as well as the shipments and inventory data, are used widely and are valuable tools for analysis of business cycle conditions. Major data users include: Members of the Council of Economic Advisers, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve Board, Conference Board, Treasury Department, and the business community. The monthly M3 reflects primarily the month-to-month changes of companies within the survey. The M3 survey collects data for 89 industry categories of which 13 provide non-defense and defense allocations. Those industries include: Small Arms and Ordnance; Communications Equipment; Search and Navigation Equipment; Aircraft; Aircraft Engine and Parts; Missile, Space Vehicle, and Parts Manufacturing Defense; and Ship and Boat Building. There is a clear need to perform a periodic benchmark of the M3 estimates to reflect the manufacturing universe levels. The Annual Survey of Manufactures

(ASM)provides annual benchmarks for the shipments and inventory data for the M3 survey, however, the ASM does not distinguish between non-defense and defense activities. The last collection instrument used to benchmark non-defense and defense data was the Shipments to Federal Agencies Benchmark Survey (MA-9675) conducted in 1992. Since the defense industries have dramatically changed, it is necessary to have a benchmark instrument to obtain a current allocation of data between non-defense and defense manufacturing activities for the M3 universe levels. The U.S. Census Bureau is planning a new collection to benchmark the M3 universe levels for the non-defense and defense industries listed above as of the end of 2006 and 2007. The Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders to the Department of Defense (M3DOD) survey will collect shipments, inventories, and unfilled orders data from domestic manufacturing companies that encompass defense manufacturing activities. M3 data will be adjusted based on the M3DOD results on the NAICS basis. This survey will be conducted every five years to provide correct benchmark levels and preserve the integrity of the estimates for the M3 survey, especially for the closely watched non-defense capital goods series. II. Method of Collection The U.S. Census Bureau will use mail out/mail back survey forms to collect the data. Companies will be asked to respond to the survey within 45 days of receipt. Survey analysts will telephone non-respondents who have not reported by the deadline for preparing the final survey results. III. Data *OMB Number:* None. *Form Number:* M-3DOD. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 5,000. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 2,500. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $65,650. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, U.S.C., Sections 131 and 182. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: October 19, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20985 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Youth Volunteering, Service, and Civic Engagement Survey AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, 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, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before December 24, 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 Richard A. Schwartz, U.S. Census Bureau, 7H0003N, Washington, DC 20233-8400 at

(301)763-7491 (or via the Internet at *Richard.A.Schwartz@census.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Census Bureau plans to request a reinstatement of the clearance used to conduct the 2005 and 2007 rounds of the Youth Volunteering and Civic Engagement Survey. The purpose of this voluntary survey is to provide data on volunteer activities, participation in school-based service-learning, and civic engagement among American teenagers. The Corporation for National and Community Service is the federal agency that encourages Americans of all ages and backgrounds to engage in community-based service and volunteering to meet the nation's educational, public safety, environmental, homeland security, and other human needs. Conducting a study of a rarely evaluated segment of the volunteering population will provide important data that will inform the work that the Corporation is doing across the country. For example, the Corporation's Learn and Serve American grant program provides resources to schools, higher education institutions, and community-based organizations to involve young people in meaningful service to their community while improving academic, civic, social, and career-related skills. In addition, the Corporation's AmeriCorps program provides service opportunities for Americans, ages 17 and older, to make an ongoing and intensive commitment to service to meet critical community needs. Through these programs, the Corporation seeks to promote a culture of service and civic responsibility. Teenagers are an important, yet often overlooked, volunteering population. Since volunteering during one's youth is an important predictor of continued volunteer activities, by understanding the unique needs and motivations of the teen population, we can better work to engage them in service to this country now and in the future. This survey is a continuation of the youth volunteering survey first conducted in 2005. In the 2005 survey we included sample persons 12 to 18 years of age. We are considering limiting this age group to 15 to 18 year olds. The 2008 round will again collect information on the attitudes and behaviors of teenagers in America around volunteering, service learning, and other forms of community involvement. For the proposed survey we will use retired CPS sample. Specifically, we will select teenagers under the age of 18 living in households that were eligible to participate in prior rounds of the September CPS Volunteer Supplement. Linking the survey sample to the September CPS Volunteer Supplement will not only aid in the processing of the collected data, but also in the subsequent analysis of the collected data. For example, in prior rounds of the National Youth Volunteering and Civic Engagement Survey, the levels of reported volunteering among teens was about 55% which is higher than the levels of volunteering reported in the CPS Volunteer Supplement (~29%). Survey design may account for some portion of the difference, but we are concerned that nonresponse bias may enter in as well. By selecting the sample from households that participated in the CPS Volunteer Supplement we will have additional information on volunteering rates that can be used to assess nonresponse bias in the proposed survey. The data collected in this survey will include information on youth volunteering activities that have taken place during the year prior to data collection. These activities will include both school-based community service requirements as well as volunteering activities conducted through religious and service groups. Basic demographic data for the sample person will be available from the CPS. Specifically, we will ask about the youth's current academic standing; their experiences with school-based community service and volunteering activities in the previous year; their motivations for volunteering; and the impact of school-based service and volunteering on the youth. We will also collect information on the volunteering activities of the youth's family and their attitudes and behaviors in regard to other forms of civic engagement, such as the likelihood of future volunteering, their sense of personal efficacy, their participation in community collaboration, and their political engagement. II. Method of Collection The information will be collected by the Census Bureau's Telephone Centers. Advance letters will be sent out about two weeks prior to data collection. These letters will include a letter to the parent as well as a letter to the respondent informing them of the upcoming survey. We will provide phone numbers and e-mail addresses for sample persons and parents of sample persons to contact with questions regarding the survey. We plan to offer a monetary incentive to youth who agree to participate in the survey. All interviewing will be done using an automated instrument designed for use in a centralized telephone-interviewing site. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0607-0913. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3,200. *Estimated Time per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,600. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $0. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C. Section 182. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: October 19, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20991 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau. 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: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before December 24, 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 Jennifer Whitaker, Chief, Public Finance Analysis Branch-A, Governments Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-6800 [(301) 763-2823] (or via the Internet at *Jennifer.N.Whitaker@census.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Census Bureau plans to request clearance for the forms necessary to conduct the public finance program which consists of an annual collection of information and a quinquennial collection in the census years ending in “2” and “7”. During the upcoming three years, Census intends to conduct the 2008, 2009 and 2010 Annual Survey of Government Finance. The Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finance collects data on state government finances and estimates of local government revenue, expenditure, debt, and assets, nationally and within state areas. Data are collected for all agencies, departments, and institutions of the fifty state governments and for a sample of all local governments (counties, municipalities, townships, and special districts). Data for school districts are collected under a separate survey. In the census year, equivalent data are collected from all local governments. This survey is a mail canvass survey with an initial mailing and three follow-up mailings. Telephone follow-up is used to contact non-respondents and, as necessary, to correct apparent errors and incorrect responses. The forms and procedures are the same as those used in previous finance surveys. Results of this survey are used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to develop the public sector components of the National Income and Product Accounts. Other Federal agencies that make frequent use of these data include the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office, and the Department of Justice. Other users include state and local government executives and legislators, policy makers, economists, researchers, and the general public. II. Method of Collection Canvass methodology primarily consists of a mail out/mail back questionnaire. Responses will be scanned, and then put into an electronic format. Other methods used to collect data and maximize response include collecting local government data from central state sources and compiling from submitted financial audits, comprehensive financial reports, and public Internet outputs. Also, the finance forms can be completed on the Internet. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0607-0585. *Form Number:* F-11, F-12, F-13, F-25, F-28, F-29, F-32, and F-42. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* State or local government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 9,753. *Estimated Time per Response:* 2,903. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 29,911. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $535,918. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C. 161 and 182. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: October 19, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20994 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-856] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: We determine that imports of coated free sheet paper (“CFS paper”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore (Moorim Paper Co., Ltd. Moorim SP Co., Ltd. and Moorim USA Inc. (collectively, “Moorim”); Dennis McClure (EN Paper Mfg. Co., Ltd. and Shinoho USA, Inc. (collectively “EN Paper”); and (Kyesung Paper Co., Ltd. and Namhan Paper Co. Ltd. (collectively “Kyesung”)); or Joy Zhang (Hankuk Paper Mfg. Co., Ltd.) (“Hankuk”), and Hansol Paper Co., Ltd.) (“Hansol”)), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration-Room B-099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3692,

(202)482-5973, or

(202)482-1168, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 4, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty investigation of CFS paper from the Republic of Korea. *See Coated Free Sheet Paper from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination* , 72 FR 30766 (June 4, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). Since the *Preliminary Determination* , the following events have occurred. From July 9, 2007, through August 15, 2007, we verified the sales and cost questionnaire responses of Moorim, EN Paper, Hansol, Hankuk, and Kyesung (hereafter collectively referred to as “the Korean respondents”). On August 15, 27, 28, 30, and 31, and September 4, 2007, the Department issued its verification reports. We provided the interested parties an opportunity to comment on the *Preliminary Determination* and the Department's verification findings. On June 29, 2007, the petitioner 1 requested a hearing, and from July 2 through 9, 2007, the Korean respondents also requested a hearing to discuss issues addressed in their case and rebuttal briefs. 1 The petitioner in this investigation is NewPage Corporation. On August 28, 2007, the petitioner requested that the Department clarify the scope of the investigation of CFS paper from Korea and placed on the record of this review information to support its request. On September 10, 2007, the Department responded to the petitioner's targeting allegations that were filed on April 26, 2007. The petitioner alleged that Hansol targeted sales into a region and Moorim and Hankuk targeted specific customers. In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department stated that although petitioner's allegations were timely, the Department did not have sufficient time to fully analyze them for purposes of the preliminary determination. The Department also stated that it would fully consider this issue for purposes of the final determination. *See Preliminary Determination* 72 FR 30766, 30767. Therefore, these allegations were addressed after the preliminary determination. *See* Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding *Antidumping Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from South Korea - Post-Preliminary Analysis on Targeting (“Post-Preliminary Determination”)* , dated September 10, 2007, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room B-099 of the main Department building. We provided the interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Department's *Post-Preliminary Determination. See also “Targeted Dumping”* discussion infra. On September 12, 2007, the petitioner filed its case brief on the scope clarification issue. On September 14, 2007, the Korean respondents filed a rebuttal brief on this issue. A scope hearing was held on September 26, 2007. The hearing comprised a public session, a closed session for the antidumping investigation from Korea, and a closed session for the countervailing duty investigation from the People's Republic of China. On September 17, 2007, the petitioner and the Korean respondents submitted case briefs. On September 24, 2007, both the petitioner and the Korean respondents submitted rebuttal briefs. On September 25, 2007, a closed hearing was held at the Department. Targeted Dumping We find that there is a pattern of export prices for comparable merchandise that differs significantly among purchasers and regions; moreover, such differences cannot be taken into account using the average-to-average comparison methodology. *See* section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Accordingly, we used the transaction-to-average methodology for these sales. In the *Post-Preliminary Determination* , the Department employed the average-to-average comparison methodology used in the *Preliminary Determination* for non-targeted sales. *See Post-Preliminary Determination; see also, Preliminary Determination* , 72 FR 30766, 30768. As required by section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined that the pattern of price differences could not be taken into account using the average-to-average comparison methodology for targeted sales because that methodology, by averaging the high prices with the low prices, has the effect of masking the extent of sales at LTFV. Thus, consistent with 19 CFR 351.414(f)(2), we limited our application of the average-to-transaction methodology to the targeted sales under 19 CFR 351.414(f)(1). When calculating a respondent's specific weighted-average margin, we combined the margin calculated for the targeted sales using the average-to-transaction methodology with the margin calculated for the non-targeted sales using the average-to-average methodology. In combining the margins for the targeted and non-targeted U.S. sales databases, we have not offset any margins found among the targeted U.S. sales. We have adopted the methodology established in the *Post-Preliminary Determination* for purposes of our final determination. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties to this investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“ *Decision Memo* ”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 17, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the *Decision Memo* , is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation, and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memo* can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memo* are identical in content. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes coated free sheet paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes. Coated free sheet paper is produced from not-more-than 10 percent by weight mechanical or combined chemical/mechanical fibers. Coated free sheet paper is coated with kaolin (China clay) or other inorganic substances, with or without a binder, and with no other coating. Coated free sheet paper may be surface-colored, surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, or perforated. The subject merchandise includes single- and double-side-coated free sheet paper; coated free sheet paper in both sheet or roll form; and is inclusive of all weights, brightness levels, and finishes. The terms “wood free” or “art” paper may also be used to describe the imported product. Excluded from the scope are:

(1)coated free sheet paper that is imported printed with final content printed text or graphics;

(2)base paper to be sensitized for use in photography; and

(3)paper containing by weight 25 percent or more cotton fiber. Coated free sheet paper is classifiable under subheadings 4810.13.1900, 4810.13.2010, 4810.13.2090, 4810.13.5000, 4810.13.7040, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.7040, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, and 4810.19.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments On August 20, August 28, and September 10, 2007, the petitioner requested that the Department clarify the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of CFS paper from Indonesia, Korea and the People's Republic of China. Specifically, the petitioner asked the Department to “clarify that the scope of the investigation includes coated free sheet paper containing hardwood BCTMP.” Because this was a general issue pertaining to all six investigations, the Department set up a general issues file to handle this scope request. After considering the comments submitted by the parties to these investigations, we have determined not to adopt the scope clarification sought by the petitioner. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled “Scope Clarification Request: NewPage Corporation” dated concurrently with this notice, which is appended to “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China.” Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations for the Korean Respondents. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the *Decision Memo* . Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and cost information submitted by the Korean respondents for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the Korean respondents. Our sales and cost verification results are outlined in separate verification reports. *See* August 27, 28, and 31, 2007, and September 4, 2007, cost verification reports, and August 15, 30, and 31, 2007, sales verification reports for the Korean respondents. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise with the exception of those exported by Hansol, Moorim, and Hankuk, that are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 4, 2007, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies for which we have calculated an above *de minimis* margin based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown below. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Final Determination Margins We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 1, 2005, thorough September 30, 2006: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percent) Hansol 0.97 ( *de minimis* ) Hankuk 0.47 ( *de minimis* ) Moorim 1.05 ( *de minimis* ) EN Paper 12.31 Kyesung 31.55 All Others 18.70 Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “All Others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and *de minimis* margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). International Trade Commission

(ITC)Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether imports of the subject merchandise are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to the industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the destruction 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. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 17, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—Issues in Decision Memo Comments A. General Comments Targeting *Comment 1:* Standard and Appropriate Statistical Techniques *Comment 2:* Validity of Certain Pasta from Italy *Comment 3:* Statistical Significance Requirement *Comment 4:* Whether the Average-to-Average Method Can Account for Targeted Dumping *Comment 5:* Statutory Application of Transaction-to-Transaction Methodology *Comment 6:* Discretionary Application of Transaction-to-Transaction Methodology *Comment 7:* Margin Calculation of Targeted and Non-Targeted Sales *Comment 8:* Proposed Transaction-to-Transaction Margin Program Cost of Production *Comment 9:* Application of Partial Facts Available to Hansol, Moorim, and Hankuk's Total Cost of Manufacture *Comment 10:* Differences in Merchandise Were Not Verified B. Company-Specific Comments Hansol *Comment 1:* Treatment of Constructed Export Price

(CEP)Offset *Comment 2:* Treatment of Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in Korea (DINDIRSU) *Comment 3:* Treatment of Missing U.S. Payment Dates *Comment 4:* Treatment of U.S. Repacking *Comment 5:* Adjustment of Hansol's Reported U.S. Rebates *Comment 6:* Production Quantities Were Not Verified *Comment 7:* General and Administrative Expense Rate *Comment 8:* Financial Expense Rate Kyesung *Comment 9:* Price Adjustment Related to the U.S. Price *Comment 10:* Request to Apply Partial Adverse Facts Available Moorim *Comment 11:* Moorim's Pulp Costs Remain Unexplained Hankuk *Comment 12:* Timeliness of Targeted Dumping Allegation concerning Hankuk Paper *Comment 13:* Standard Costs for Hankuk EN Paper *Comment 14:* Credit Balance for Bad Debt Allowance [FR Doc. E7-21035 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-906 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007. SUMMARY: On June 4, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) in the antidumping investigation of coated free sheet paper (“CFS”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made changes to our calculations for the mandatory respondents. The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Drew Jackson, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4162 and 482-4406, respectively. Final Determination We determine that CFS from the PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination Margins” section of this notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on June 4, 2007. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). Between June 18, 2007, and July 13, 2007, the Department conducted verifications of the collapsed entity Gold East Co. Ltd.(Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd., Gold Hua Sheng Paper (Suzhou Industry Park) Co. Ltd., and China Union (Macao Commercial Offshore) Company Ltd.) (collectively “Gold East”) and its U.S. affiliate, and separate rates applicant Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co. Ltd. (“Yanzhou Tianzhang”), and its U.S. importer. *See* the “Verification” section below for additional information. We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. On August 31, 2007, petitioner, 1 the Bureau of Fair Trade, Ministry of Commerce, People's Republic of China (“BOFT”), Yanzhou Tianzhang, and Gold East filed case briefs. Petitioner and Gold East filed rebuttal briefs on September 7, 2007. Additionally, on September 12, 2007, petitioner, Gold East, Yanzhou Tianzhang, and BOFT, along with other interested parties in concurrent CFS investigations, submitted comments regarding the scope of the instant investigation. These parties filed rebuttal scope comments on September 20, 2007. In response to requests from interested parties, the Department held a hearing on the scope of the investigation on September 26, 2007. 1 Petitioner in this investigation is NewPage Corporation. Analysis of Comments Received With the exception of the scope issue, all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the “Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum,” dated October 17, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”). The scope issue is addressed in a separate memorandum. *See* “Scope Comments” section, below. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issue and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Additionally, because some of the issues that parties raised and to which we respond contain proprietary information, there is a separate proprietary version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. *See* “Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comments and Department of Commerce's Positions Containing Proprietary Information,” dated October 17, 2007. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have changed the margin calculation for Gold East. Those changes include the following: 1. We revised our calculation of the per-unit cost of Gold East's self-produced electricity and did not value steam used in production. 2. Based on verification findings,

(a)we revised the average market-economy price reported for a type of pulp;

(b)recalculated the net unit price of constructed export price (“CEP”) sales to account for unreported selling expenses;

(c)reclassified one export price sale as a CEP sale and adjusted the sale's price to reflect CEP expenses; and

(d)based the dumping margin of one unreported sale on adverse facts available (“AFA”). 3. We did not value certain reported factors based on our finding that these factors are used in the maintenance of machines, and are properly classified as overhead items. 4. We revised surrogate values for certain factors of production. 5. We valued certain inputs used by Gold East to treat water. 6. We revised the surrogate values for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”), and profit. 7. We corrected a ministerial error involving one of Gold East's self-produced inputs. For a detailed analysis of Gold East's margin calculation, *see* “Final Determination in the Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for Gold East”, dated October 17, 2007. We assigned separate rates applicant Yanzhou Tianzhang the revised final margin calculated for Gold East, the only mandatory respondent to fully participate in this investigation. We assigned the PRC-wide rate, as total AFA, to Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited (“Chenming'), because it ceased participating in this investigation prior to the scheduled verification and, consequently, did not demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes coated free sheet paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes. Coated free sheet paper is produced from not-more-than 10 percent by weight mechanical or combined chemical/mechanical fibers. Coated free sheet paper is coated with kaolin (China clay) or other inorganic substances, with or without a binder, and with no other coating. Coated free sheet paper may be surface-colored, surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, or perforated. The subject merchandise includes single- and double-side-coated free sheet paper; coated free sheet paper in both sheet or roll form; and is inclusive of all weights, brightness levels, and finishes. The terms “wood free” or “art” paper may also be used to describe the imported product. Excluded from the scope are:

(1)Coated free sheet paper that is imported printed with final content printed text or graphics;

(2)base paper to be sensitized for use in photography; and

(3)paper containing by weight 25 percent or more cotton fiber. Coated free sheet paper is classifiable under subheadings 4810.13.1900, 4810.13.2010, 4810.13.2090, 4810.13.5000, 4810.13.7040, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.7040, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, and 4810.19.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments On August 20, August 28, and September 10, 2007, the petitioner requested that the Department clarify the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of CFS paper from Indonesia, Korea and the People's Republic of China. Specifically, the petitioner asked the Department to “clarify that the scope of the investigation includes coated free sheet paper containing hardwood BCTMP.” Because this was a general issue pertaining to all six investigations, the Department set up a general issues file to handle this scope request. A hearing on the scope request was held on September 26, 2007. The hearing comprised a public session, a closed session for the antidumping investigation from Korea, and a closed session for the countervailing duty investigation from the PRC. After considering the comments submitted by the parties to these investigations, we have determined not to adopt the scope clarification sought by the petitioner. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled “Scope Clarification Request: NewPage Corporation” dated concurrently with this notice, which is appended to “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China.” Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party

(A)withholds information requested by the Department,

(B)fails to provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested,

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding, or

(D)provides information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and

(e)of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met:

(1)The information is submitted by the established deadline;

(2)the information can be verified;

(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;

(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and

(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. On June 7, 2007, six days before the commencement of verification, counsel for Chenming informed Department officials that Chenming would not continue its participation in the instant investigation. *See* Memorandum to the File through Howard Smith, Program Manager, Office 4, concerning “Telephone Conversation with Counsel for Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Co., Ltd.,” dated June 7, 2007; *see also* Chenming's letter to the Department, concerning, “Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China; Withdrawal of Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited and Withdrawal of Consent to Access Proprietary Information,” dated June 11, 2007. Because Chenming ceased participation in the instant investigation, the Department was not able to conduct its scheduled verification of Chenming's responses. Verification is integral to the Department's analysis because it allows the Department to satisfy itself that it is relying upon accurate information and calculating dumping margins as accurately as possible. By failing to participate in verification, Chenming prevented the Department from verifying its reported information, including separate rates information, and significantly impeded the proceeding. Moreover, by not permitting verification, Chenming failed to prove that it is free of government control and entitled to a separate rate. Additionally, Chenming's refusal to participate in verification demonstrates that it failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request from the Department. Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference with respect to an interested party if the Department finds that the party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997); *see also Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States* , 343 F. Supp.2d 1242 (CIT 2004) (approving use of AFA when respondent refused to participate in verification). Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) and

(D)and 776(b) of the Act, we have, as AFA, treated Chenming as part of the PRC-wide entity and assigned Chenming the PRC-wide rate of 99.65 percent. *See* the sections entitled “The PRC-Wide Rate” and “Corroboration,” below, for a discussion of the selection and corroboration of the PRC-Wide rate. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verifications in the PRC and the United States of the information submitted by the respondent and the separate rate applicant for use in our final determination. *See* the Department's verification reports on the record of this investigation in the CRU with respect to Gold East and Yanzhou Tianzhang. For all verified companies, we used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by respondents. Surrogate Country In the *Preliminary Determination* , we stated that we had selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation for the following reasons:

(1)it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise;

(2)it is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and

(3)we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. *See Preliminary Determination* . For the final determination, we received no comments and made no changes to our findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-market-economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified by *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”), and Section 351.107(d) of the Department's regulations. In the *Preliminary Determination* , we found that Gold East and the separate rate applicant, Yanzhou Tianzhang, demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status. No party has commented on the eligibility of Gold East or Yanzhou Tianzhang for separate-rate status. For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Gold East and Yanzhou Tianzhang demonstrate both a *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under investigation and thus are eligible for separate rate status. The PRC-Wide Rate In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that certain companies and the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for information. In the *Preliminary Determination* , we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not demonstrate that they operate free of government control over their export activities. No additional information has been placed on the record with respect to these entities after the **Preliminary Determination** . The PRC-wide entity has not provided the Department with the requested information; therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department continues to find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). *See also* , “ *Statement of Administrative Action* ” accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994). We determine that because the PRC-wide entity has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability because it did not respond to our request for information. Therefore, the Department finds that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity. Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a NME country are subject to government control and because only the companies listed under the “Final Determination Margins” section below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate - the PRC-wide rate - to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. *See* , *e.g.* , *Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from the respondents which are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below (except as noted). Corroboration At the *Preliminary Determination* , we corroborated our AFA margin by comparing the range of control number-specific dumping margins calculated for the preliminary determination to the dumping margin alleged in the petition. For the final determination, we conducted a similar analysis and continue to find that the margin of 99.65 percent has probative value. See Memorandum to the File: “Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Facts Available Rate for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China”, dated October 17, 2007. In addition, no party to this investigation has commented on our selection of this rate as AFA. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 99.65 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Final Determination Margins We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2006, thorough September 30, 2006: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percent) GE's Collapsed Entity: 21.12 (Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd.-Gold Hua Sheng Paper (Suzhou Industry Park) Co. Ltd.-China Union (Macao Commercial Offshore) Company Ltd Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co. Ltd. 21.12 PRC-Wide Rate 99.65 Disclosure We will disclose to parties the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise that are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 4, 2007, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise within 45 days of this final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to the 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 return or 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 determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 17, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Parties' Comments *Comment 1:* Whether to Reconsider China's Non-Market Economy

(NME)Status and Whether to Treat Certain PRC Companies as Market Oriented Enterprises *Comment 2:* Alleged Double Remedy in Concurrent NME AD and CVD Proceedings *Comment 3:* The Appropriate Surrogate Financial Statements to use to Calculate Financial Ratios *Comment 4:* Whether to Adjust the Financial Ratios by Allocating Wages and Salaries Between Non-manufacturing and Manufacturing Expenses *Comment 5:* Whether to Adjust the Financial Ratios by Allocating “Stores and Spares” Expenses Between Direct Material Costs and Overhead Expenses *Comment 6:* Whether to Value Certain Materials Claimed to be Overhead Expenses *Comment 7:* Whether to Value Self-Produced Electricity Used to Produce Electricity *Comment 8:* Whether to Value Steam That is a By-Product of Self-Produced Electricity *Comment 9:* Whether to Value Certain Inputs used in Treating Water *Comment 10:* Whether GE Incorrectly Reported the Unit Price of Certain Purchases *Comment 11:* Whether the Department Erred in Calculating the Value of a Self-Produced Input *Comment 12:* Whether Certain Pulp Purchases Should be Treated as Market-Economy Purchases *Comment 13:* Whether it is Appropriate to Value Labor Using the Expected Wage Rate Calculated by the Department *Comment 14:* The Appropriate Surrogate Value For A Ground Calcium Carbonate Input *Comments 15:* The Appropriate Surrogate Value for a Proprietary Material *Comment 16:* The Appropriate Surrogate Value for a Proprietary Material *Comment 17:* The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Hydrochloric Acid *Comment 18:* The Appropriate Surrogate Values For Other Paper Chemicals *Comment 19:* The Appropriate Surrogate Value For Steam Coal *Comment 20:* The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Certain PET Packing Materials *Comment 21:* The Appropriate Surrogate Value for a Proprietary Material *Comment 22:* How to Account for Certain Unreported Expenses *Comment 23:* Whether the Department Should Base the Dumping Margin for One Unreported Sale on Total Adverse Facts Available *Comment 24:* Whether to Reclassify One Sale as a CEP Sale *Comment 25:* Whether to Adjust the Market-Economy Purchase Price of NBKP [FR Doc. E7-21041 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-560-820 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: We determine that imports of coated free sheet paper (“CFS paper”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B-099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1766 or

(202)482-3773, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 4, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the *Preliminary Determination* of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty investigation of CFS paper from Indonesia. *See Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination* , 72 FR 30753 (June 4, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). On June 13, 2007, 1 PT. Pindo Deli Pulp & Paper Mills (“PD”), PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia, Tbk (“TK”), and their affiliates PT. Cakrawala Mega Indah (“CMI”), PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Tbk (“IK”), PT. Lontar Papyrus Pulp & Paper Industries (“Lontar”), PT Arara Abadi (“AA”) and PT. Wirakarya Sakti (“WKS”) (hereafter collectively referred to as “the Indonesian Respondents”) 2 submitted a revised cost of production (“COP”) database for TK which incorporated corrections found prior to the start of verification. On June 27, 2007, the Indonesian Respondents submitted a revised COP database for PD which incorporated corrections submitted at the start of PD's cost verification on June 22, 2007. 1 June 13, 2007, is seven days prior to the start of the cost verification. 2 PD and TK are CFS paper producers, whereas CMI is a reseller of paper products produced by PD and TK. IK and Lontar are pulp producers, whereas AA and WKS are forestry companies. From June 20 through July 20, 2007, we verified the sales and cost questionnaire responses of the Indonesian Respondents. On August 20, 27, and 28, 2007, the Department issued its verification reports. We provided the interested parties an opportunity to comment on the *Preliminary Determination* and the Department's verification findings. On June 29, 2007, the petitioner 3 requested a hearing to discuss issues addressed by the interested parties in their case and rebuttal briefs. 3 The petitioner in this investigation is NewPage Corporation. On August 28, 2007, the petitioner requested that the Department clarify the scope of the investigation of CFS paper from Indonesia and placed on the record of this review information to support its request. On September 5, 2007, the petitioner and the Indonesian Respondents submitted case briefs. On September 6, 2007, the petitioner withdrew its request for a hearing. Because the petitioner was the only interested party to request a hearing and it subsequently withdrew its request, no hearing was held on issues raised in the September 5, 2007, case briefs. On September 10, 2007, both the petitioner and the Indonesian Respondents submitted rebuttal briefs. Also on September 10, 2007, the Department rejected the petitioner's August 28, 2007, scope clarification submission because it contained untimely filed new factual information. The petitioner refiled its submission with the new factual information redacted on September 10, 2007. On September 12, 2007, the petitioner and Indonesian Respondents filed case briefs on the scope issue. On September 14, 2007, the Department rejected the Indonesian Respondents' case brief on the scope issue because it contained untimely filed new factual information. The Indonesian Respondents refiled this case brief with the new factual information redacted on September 17, 2007. On September 17, 2007, the Department rejected the Indonesian Respondents' September 10, 2007, rebuttal brief because it contained untimely filed new argument. The Indonesian Respondents refiled their rebuttal brief with the new argument redacted on September 18, 2007. On September 20, 2007, the petitioner and Indonesian Respondents filed rebuttal briefs on the scope issue. A hearing on the scope issue was held on September 26, 2007. Period of Investigation The period of investigation is October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties to this investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“ *Decision Memo* ”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 17, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the *Decision Memo* , is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memo* can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memo* are identical in content. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes coated free sheet paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes. Coated free sheet paper is produced from not-more-than 10 percent by weight mechanical or combined chemical/mechanical fibers. Coated free sheet paper is coated with kaolin (China clay) or other inorganic substances, with or without a binder, and with no other coating. Coated free sheet paper may be surface-colored, surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, or perforated. The subject merchandise includes single- and double-side-coated free sheet paper; coated free sheet paper in both sheet or roll form; and is inclusive of all weights, brightness levels, and finishes. The terms “wood free” or “art” paper may also be used to describe the imported product. Excluded from the scope are:

(1)coated free sheet paper that is imported printed with final content printed text or graphics;

(2)base paper to be sensitized for use in photography; and

(3)paper containing by weight 25 percent or more cotton fiber. Coated free sheet paper is classifiable under subheadings 4810.13.1900, 4810.13.2010, 4810.13.2090, 4810.13.5000, 4810.13.7040, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.7040, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, and 4810.19.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments On August 20, August 28, and September 10, 2007, the petitioner requested that the Department clarify the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of CFS paper from Indonesia, Korea and the People's Republic of China. Specifically, the petitioner asked the Department to “clarify that the scope of the investigation includes coated free sheet paper containing hardwood BCTMP.” Because this was a general issue pertaining to all six investigations, the Department set up a general issues file to handle this scope request. A hearing on the scope request was held on September 26, 2007. The hearing comprised a public session, a closed session for the antidumping investigation from Korea, and a closed session for the countervailing duty investigation from the PRC. After considering the comments submitted by the parties to these investigations, we have determined not to adopt the scope clarification sought by the petitioner. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled “Scope Clarification Request: NewPage Corporation” dated concurrently with this notice, which is appended to “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China.” Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations for the Indonesian Respondents. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the *Decision Memo* . Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and cost information submitted by the Indonesian Respondents for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the Indonesian Respondents. Our sales and cost verification results are outlined in separate verification reports. *See* August 20, 2007, cost verification report, and August 27 and 28, 2007, sales verification reports for the Indonesian Respondents. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise that are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 4, 2007, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown below. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Final Determination Margins We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percent) PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk, PT. Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills, and PT. Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk (collectively, PD/TK/IK) 8.63 All Others 8.63 Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “All Others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. The collapsed entity PD/TK/IK 4 is the only respondent in this investigation for which the Department has calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “All Others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for PD/TK/IK, as referenced above. 4 In the *Preliminary Determination* , we determined it appropriate to treat PD, TK and IK as one entity for margin calculation purposes because they met the regulatory criteria for collapsing. *See* May 29, 2007, Memorandum from the Team to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled "Treatment of Data Reported by Affiliated Parties in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia" No party commented on this preliminary determination and we found nothing at verification that would otherwise compel us to reverse this determination. Therefore, we have continued to treat these affiliated companies as one entity in the final determination. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether imports of the subject merchandise are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the destruction 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. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 17, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—Issues in Decision Memo Comments Issue 1: *Whether to Adjust Export Price for Amounts Paid by TK to an Unaffiliated Company* Issue 2: *Application of Major Input Rule to Logs Used to Produce Pulp by IK* Issue 3: *Application of Major Input Rule to Pulp Produced by Lontar* Issue 4: *Selection of Market Price Used for Testing of Purchases of Pulp from Lontar* Issue 5: *Application of Transactions Disregarded Rule for Purchases of Electricity* Issue 6: *Treatment of Miscellaneous Expenses in Financial Expense Calculation* [FR Doc. E7-21042 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-533-840) Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission In Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3874. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on September 12, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative review on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 52055 (Sept. 12, 2007) ( *Final Results* ). On October 12, 2007, we received an allegation from Lotus Sea Farms (Lotus), a respondent in this proceeding, that the Department made a ministerial error with respect to the rate assigned to it in the final results. Although we received Lotus's ministerial error allegation after the normal deadline for filing ministerial error allegations ( *see* 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2),(4)), we find good cause to extend the deadline for filing a ministerial error allegation to the date we received the request and allegation from Lotus. *See* 19 CFR 351.302(b). After analyzing Lotus's submission, we have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act, that we made a ministerial error in the final results when we assigned the adverse facts available

(AFA)rate to Lotus because we believed that it had failed to submit a response to the Department's quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire when, in fact, it had done so. Therefore, because: 1) Lotus responded to the Department's request for Q&V information in this administrative review; and 2) the evidence on the record does not indicate that Lotus exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we are rescinding the administrative review for it. Amended Final Results of Review and Rescission in Part We have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that the Department made a ministerial error in the final results by assigning Lotus the AFA rate when Lotus did indeed respond to the Department's request for Q&V information. In addition, because the evidence on the record of this administrative review does not indicate that Lotus exported subject merchandise during the POR, we are rescinding the administrative review for it. For a detailed discussion of this ministerial error, the Department's finding of good cause to extend the deadline for filing a ministerial error allegation, and the Department's analysis, see the October 16, 2007, memorandum to James Maeder from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, “Ministerial Error Allegation Regarding Lotus Sea Farms in the Final Results of the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India.” Therefore, we are amending the final results of administrative review of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. As a result of correcting the ministerial error discussed above, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Lotus, and we will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection of this rescission. For the remaining respondents, the weighted-average dumping margins remain the same. *See Final Results* . We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 19, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21039 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-533-810 Stainless Steel Bar from India: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland and/or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-1279 or

(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 28, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India covering the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007 (72 FR 14516). The preliminary results for this administrative review are currently due no later than October 31, 2007. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an antidumping duty order for which a review is requested and issue the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Due to the complexity of the issues in this case, including affiliation and cost of production, and outstanding supplemental responses, it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the original time limit ( *i.e.* , October 31, 2007). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results to no later than February 28, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 18, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21038 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-816] Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the time limit for the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. The period of review is June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006. This extension is made pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Lao or John Drury, Office 7, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone:

(202)482-7924 and

(202)482-0195, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 2, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan covering the period June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006. *See* Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 72 FR 35970 (July 2, 2007). The final results for the antidumping duty administrative review of certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan are currently due no later than October 30, 2007. Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Department to issue the results in an administrative review within 120 days of the publication of the preliminary results. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the final results to 180 days (or 300 days if the Department does not extend the time limit for the preliminary results) from the date of publication of the preliminary results. In accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the review within the original time frame ( *i.e.* , by October 30, 2007). Specifically, the Department requires additional time to review complex issues raised in the case briefs. In addition, the Department accepted new factual information late in the proceeding and finds it necessary to take additional time to complete an analysis of that information. Because it is not practicable to complete this administrative review within the time limit mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results of this administrative review by 45 days, to no later than December 14, 2007. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 18, 2007. Stephen J. Clays, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21037 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-580-857) Coated Free Sheet Paper from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: We determine that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of coated free sheet paper from the Republic of Korea. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; Telephone: 202-482-2209. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This investigation covers 19 programs and the following manufacturer/exporters: EN Paper Mfg. Co., Ltd. (EN Paper) (formerly Shinho Paper Co., Ltd. (Shinho Paper)), Kyesung Paper Co., Ltd. and its affiliate Namhan Paper Co., Ltd. (collectively, Kyesung), Moorim Paper Co. Ltd. (formerly Shinmoorim Paper Mfg. Co., Ltd.) and its affiliate Moorim SP (collectively, Moorim), and Hansol Paper Co., Ltd. (Hansol) (collectively, respondents). On April 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary affirmative determination in the countervailing duty investigation of coated free sheet paper from the Republic of Korea. *See Coated Free Paper from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 FR 17507* , 17520 (April 9, 2007) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). On May 8, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the *Notice of Amended Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the Republic of Korea* , 72 FR 26074 (May 8, 2007) ( *Amended Preliminary Determination* ). From June 11 through June 29, 2007, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the Government of Korea and respondents. In the *Preliminary Determination* , we found that we required additional information in order to determine whether respondents' short-term financing from GOK-owned banks and commercial banks conferred countervailable benefits. Similarly, regarding the Industrial Base Fund (IBF), we found that we required additional information in order to determine whether the program conferred a countervailable subsidy. On September 6, 2007, we issued our preliminary findings regarding these programs. *See* Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, through Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). We invited interested parties to comment on the *Preliminary Determination* and Preliminary Decision Memorandum. We received case and rebuttal briefs from petitioner and respondents regarding the *Preliminary Determination* on August 13 and August 22, 2007, respectively. 1 On September 14 and September 19, 2007, we received case and rebuttal briefs from petitioner and respondents regarding the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 Petitioner is the New Page Corporation. Period of Investigation The period of investigation

(POI)is January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes coated free sheet paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes. Coated free sheet paper is produced from not-more-than 10 percent by weight mechanical or combined chemical/mechanical fibers. Coated free sheet paper is coated with kaolin (China clay) or other inorganic substances, with or without a binder, and with no other coating. Coated free sheet paper may be surface-colored, surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, or perforated. The subject merchandise includes single- and double-side-coated free sheet paper; coated free sheet paper in both sheet or roll form; and is inclusive of all weights, brightness levels, and finishes. The terms “wood free” or “art” paper may also be used to describe the imported product. Excluded from the scope are:

(1)coated free sheet paper that is imported printed with final content printed text or graphics;

(2)base paper to be sensitized for use in photography; and

(3)paper containing by weight 25 percent or more cotton fiber. Coated free sheet paper is classifiable under subheadings 4810.13.1900, 4810.13.2010, 4810.13.2090, 4810.13.5000, 4810.13.7040, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.7040, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, and 4810.19.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments On August 20, August 28, and September 10, 2007, the petitioner requested that the Department clarify the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of CFS paper from Indonesia, Korea and the People's Republic of China. Specifically, the petitioner asked the Department to “clarify that the scope of the investigation includes coated free sheet paper containing hardwood BCTMP.” Because this was a general issue pertaining to all six investigations, the Department set up a general issues file to handle this scope request. A hearing on the scope request was held on September 26, 2007. The hearing comprised a public session, a closed session for the antidumping investigation from Korea, and a closed session for the countervailing duty investigation from the PRC. After considering the comments submitted by the parties to these investigations, we have determined not to adopt the scope clarification sought by the petitioner. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled “Scope Clarification Request: NewPage Corporation” dated concurrently with this notice, which is appended to “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China.” Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) dated October 17, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) (the Act), we have calculated individual rates for the companies under investigation. For the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, we determine the net subsidy rates for the investigated companies are as follows: Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate EN Paper Mfg. Co., Ltd. (EN Paper) 0.04 percent ( *de minimis* ) Kyesung Paper Co., Ltd. and its affiliate Namhan Paper Co., Ltd. (collectively, Kyesung) 1.46 percent *ad valorem* Moorim Paper Co. Ltd. and its affiliate Moorim SP (collectively, Moorim) 0.00 percent Hansol Paper Co., Ltd. (Hansol) 0.17 percent ( *de minimis* ) All Others Rate 1.46 percent *ad valorem* Under section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the “All Others” rate is equal to the weight-averaged countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and *de minimis* countervailable subsidy rates and any rates determined under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, the “All Others” rate is equal to the countervailable net subsidy rate calculated for Kyesung, the only individually investigated respondent with an affirmative net subsidy rate. In accordance with our *Amended Preliminary Determination* , we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to terminate suspension of liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Korea on or after April 9, 2007, the date of the publication of our *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . We will reinstate suspension of liquidation under sections 705(c)(1)(C) and 703(d)(2) of the Act for all entries of subject merchandise other than those produced and exported by EN Paper, Hansol, and Moorim and will require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to estimated countervailing duties in the amounts indicated above, effective the publication date of our final determination in the **Federal Register** . If the International Trade Commission

(ITC)determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. If however, the ITC determines that such injury does exist, we will issue a countervailing duty order. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided that the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 17, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I I. SUMMARY II. SCOPE COMMENTS III. PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION IV. SUBSIDIES VALUATION INFORMATION A. Benchmark for Short-Term Loans B. Benchmark for Long-Term Loans C. Benchmark Discount Rates D. Allocation Period V. CROSS-OWNERSHIP VI. CREDITWORTHINESS VII. EQUITYWORTHINESS VIII. PROGRAMS DETERMINED TO BE COUNTERVAILABLE A. Poongman Restructuring B. Export and Import Credit Financing from KEXIM C. Sale of Pulp for Less Than Adequate Remuneration D. Sales of Pulp From Raw Material Reserve for Less Than Adequate Remuneration E. Reduction in Taxes for Operation in Regional and National Industrial Complexes F. Duty Drawback on Non-Physically Incorporated Items and Excess Loss Rate G. Loans Under the Industrial Base Fund

(IBF)H. Export Loans by Commercial Banks Under KEXIM's Trade Bill Rediscounting Program I. D/A Loans Issued by the KDB and Other Government-Owned Banks IX. PROGRAMS DETERMINED TO BE NOT COUNTERVAILABLE A. Long-Term Lending Provided by the KDB and Other GOK-Owned Institutions B. Direction of Credit to the Pulp and Paper Sector C. Usance Loans Issued by the KDB and Other Government-Owned Banks D. Shinho Restructuring 1. Debt-to-Equity Swaps and Conversion of Convertible Bonds to Equity 2. Extension of Debt Maturities 3. New Loans X. OTHER PROGRAMS: LOANS UNDER THE ACCL PROGRAM A. Trade Financing Under the ACCL Program B. Commercial Paper Loans Under the ACCL Program C. Corporate Procurement Loans Under the ACCL Program D. Electronically Processed Secured Receivables Loans E. Funds for the Production of Basic Materials or Parts XI. TERMINATED PROGRAMS A. Loans Under the KDB's Rediscount Program XII. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS *Comment 1:* Whether the GOK Directed Credit to the Pulp and Paper Industry *Comment 2:* Stainless Steel Is Not Applicable to Poongman's Restructuring *Comment 3:* GOK Assisted and Directed Credit to Poongman During its Restructuring *Comment 4:* Poongman Was Unequityworthy and Uncreditworthy *Comment 5:* Poongman Did Not Benefit from Debt Forgiveness *Comment 6:* Evidence of Entrustment or Direction of Shinho's Creditors *Comment 7:* GOK Ownership of Shinho's Creditors and the Corporate Restructuring Process *Comment 8:* Whether Shinho Was Uncreditworthy During its 1998, 2000, and 2002 Restructurings and 2004 Syndicated Loan *Comment 9:* Whether Shinho Was Unequityworthy During its 1998, 2000, and 2002 Restructurings *Comment 10:* The Validity of the Analyses of Shinho's Financial Status Conducted by Third Parties *Comment 11:* Donghae Pulp's Sale of Chemical Pulp for Less Than Adequate Remuneration *Comment 12:* Commerce Correctly Calculated the Benefits from Donghae Pulp Based On Monthly Weighted-Average Prices *Comment 13:* If the Department Continues to Calculate Monthly Weighted-Average Prices for Donghae Pulp, Certain Methodological Corrections Are Required *Comment 14:* Hansol's Arguments that Donghae Pulp is Owned or Controlled by the GOK *Comment 15:* The Benefit Calculation for Donghae Pulp's Sale of Pulp Must Account for Prevailing Market Conditions *Comment 16:* Whether Usance and Document Acceptance Loans Provided Outside of the ACCL Program Are Countervailable *Comment 17:* Whether the Department Should Pro-Rate Benefits on D/A Loans Under the Korea Export Import Bank (KEXIM ) Program *Comment 18:* Source Data of the Benchmark To Be Applied to D/A Loans Under the KEXIM Rediscount Program and Usance Loans Issued by GOK Authorities *Comment 19:* Calculation of Benchmark To Be Applied to D/A Loans Under the KEXIM Rediscount Program *Comment 20:* Whether Commercial Paper and Corporate Procurement Loans are Countervailable *Comment 21:* Use of Company-Specific Benchmark to Measure the Benefit to Hansol Under KEXIM's Export and Import Credit Financing Program *Comment 22:* Use of Non-Company-Specific Benchmarks for KEXIM's Import and Export Credit Financing Program *Comment 23:* Whether Hansol Received Countervailable Benefits Through the KDB's Placement of its Corporate Bonds *Comment 24:* Whether Loans from the Industrial Base Fund

(IBF)Constitute Countervailable Export Subsidies *Comment 25:* Benchmark Rates for Long-Term Korean Won-Denominated Loans XIII. RECOMMENDATION [FR Doc. E7-21036 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration C-560-821 Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has reached a final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of coated free sheet paper

(CFS)from Indonesia. For information on the countervailable subsidy rates, please see the “Final Determination” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey, Nicholas Czajkowski, or Gene Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3964,

(202)482-1395, or

(202)482-3586, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History On April 9, 2007, the Department published *Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination* , 72 FR 17498 (April 9, 2007) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). Since the issuance of the *Preliminary Determination* , the following events have occurred. On April 10 and May 18, 2007, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the Government of Indonesia

(GOI)and to PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk.

(TK)and Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills

(PD)(the respondent companies). On April 20 and May 24, 2007, the Department issued initial and supplemental questionnaires to the GOI and to the respondent companies regarding the petitioner's December 15, 2007 additional allegations concerning debt forgiveness. Both parties submitted timely responses to all of the Department's questionnaires and supplemental questionnaires. On May 2, 2007, the Department aligned the final determination in this countervailing duty investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation. *See Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea: Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determinations with Final Antidumping Duty Determinations* , 72 FR 24277 (May 2, 2007). On May 10, 2007, NewPage Corporation (the petitioner) requested a hearing pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c) and the Department's *Preliminary Determination* . On June 18 and June 19, 2007, the petitioner and the respondent companies submitted new factual information concerning the Department's investigation of the “GOI Provision of Standing Timber for Less than Adequate Remuneration,” or “stumpage.” On June 28, 2007, the petitioner submitted rebuttal comments regarding the respondent companies' new factual information submission. From June 25 through July 13, 2007, the Department conducted verification of the questionnaire responses provided by the GOI and the respondent companies. On July 13, 2007, the petitioner filed an upstream subsidy allegation, claiming, in accordance with section 771A(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act), that

(1)a subsidy, other than an export subsidy, has been paid or bestowed on an input product that is used in the manufacture or production of merchandise subject to a countervailing duty proceeding;

(2)the subsidy bestows a competitive benefit on the merchandise; and

(3)the subsidy has a significant effect on the cost of manufacturing or producing the merchandise. On July 23, 2007, the respondent companies filed rebuttal comments, and on August 10, 2007, the petitioner filed surrebuttal comments on this allegation. The Department issued verification reports on August 24, 2007: *see* Memoranda to the File, *Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet

(CFS)Paper from Indonesia: Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by Ministry of Forestry and the Ministry of Finance; Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Verification of Cross-Ownership and Debt Restructuring for the Asia Pulp and Paper/Sinar Mas Group; Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Verification of PT Pindo Deli Pulp & Paper Mills and PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia (Paper Producers/Exports) and PT Cakrawala Mega Indah (trading company); Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet

(CFS)Paper from Indonesia: Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by Pulp Producers PT. Lontar Papyrus Pulp and Paper and Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk.;* and, *Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet

(CFS)Paper from Indonesia: Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by Forestry Companies PT. Arara Abadi, PT. Wirakarya Sakti, PT. Finnantara Intiga, and PT. Riau Abadi Lestari.* On September 5 and September 6, 2007, the petitioner, the GOI, the respondent companies, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (USW), a domestic interested party to this proceeding, timely filed case briefs regarding our *Preliminary Determination* . On September 11, 2007, the petitioner, the GOI, the respondent companies, and the USW each filed rebuttal comments regarding our *Preliminary Determination* . At the Department's request, the petitioner, the GOI, and the respondent companies removed what the Department determined to be new factual information from their comments and rebuttal comments regarding the Department's *Preliminary Determination* , and resubmitted those comments to the Department on September 18 and September 19, 2007. On September 7, 2007, the Department issued the interim analysis of two additional subsidy allegations. We explained in the *Preliminary Determination* that because we had only recently initiated investigations of these two programs, there was not sufficient time to gather information and analyze the countervailability of the programs for the purposes of the *Preliminary Determination* . *See* the Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, AD/CVD Operations, *Countervailing Duty Investigation: Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia; Post-Preliminary Analysis of Two New Subsidy Allegations (Post-Preliminary Analysis)* . The Department set a separate briefing schedule for parties to file comments and rebuttal comments on our *Post-Preliminary Analysis* . On September 18, 2007, such comments were filed by the GOI and the respondent companies. The petitioner filed rebuttal comments regarding the Department's *Post-Preliminary Analysis* on September 25, 2007. The petitioner withdrew its request for a hearing on September 10, 2007. Period of Investigation The period of investigation

(POI)for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005, which corresponds to the most recently completed fiscal year for the respondent companies. *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes coated free sheet paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes. Coated free sheet paper is produced from not-more-than 10 percent by weight mechanical or combined chemical/mechanical fibers. Coated free sheet paper is coated with kaolin (China clay) or other inorganic substances, with or without a binder, and with no other coating. Coated free sheet paper may be surface-colored, surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, or perforated. The subject merchandise includes single- and double-side-coated free sheet paper; coated free sheet paper in both sheet or roll form; and is inclusive of all weights, brightness levels, and finishes. The terms “wood free” or “art” paper may also be used to describe the imported product. Excluded from the scope are:

(1)Coated free sheet paper that is imported printed with final content printed text or graphics;

(2)base paper to be sensitized for use in photography; and,

(3)paper containing by weight 25 percent or more cotton fiber. Coated free sheet paper is classifiable under subheadings 4810.13.1900, 4810.13.2010, 4810.13.2090, 4810.13.5000, 4810.13.7040, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.7040, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, and 4810.19.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments On January 12, 2007, the respondent companies filed a request to exclude cast-coated free sheet paper from the scope of the investigations of CFS from Indonesia, Korea, and the People's Republic of China. The petitioner submitted comments on the respondent companies' request on January 19, 2007. The Department analyzed both parties' comments and denied the respondent companies' request to exclude cast-coated free sheet paper from the scope of these investigations. *See* the Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, *Request to Exclude Cast-Coated Free Sheet Paper from the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Investigations on Coated Free Sheet Paper* , dated March 22, 2007, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B099 of the main Commerce building. On August 20, August 28, and September 10, 2007, the petitioner requested that the Department clarify the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of CFS paper from Indonesia, Korea and the People's Republic of China (PRC). Specifically, the petitioner asked the Department to “clarify that the scope of the investigation includes coated free sheet paper containing hardwood BCTMP.” Because this was a general issue pertaining to all six investigations, the Department set up a general issues file to handle this scope request. A hearing on the scope request was held on September 26, 2007. The hearing comprised a public session, a closed session for the antidumping investigation from Korea, and a closed session for the countervailing duty investigation from the PRC. After considering the comments submitted by the parties to these investigations, we have determined not to adopt the scope clarification sought by the petitioner. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled “Scope Clarification Request: NewPage Corporation” dated concurrently with this notice, which is appended to “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China.” Initiation and Deferral of Upstream Subsidy Investigation On July 13, 2007, the petitioner filed an upstream subsidy allegation, claiming, in accordance with section 771A(a) of the Act, that

(1)a subsidy, other than an export subsidy, has been paid or bestowed on an input product, *i.e.* , pulpwood, that is used in the manufacture or production of merchandise subject to a countervailing duty proceeding, *i.e.* , CFS paper;

(2)the subsidy bestows a competitive benefit on the merchandise; and

(3)the subsidy has a significant effect on the cost of manufacturing or producing the merchandise. *See* 19 CFR 351.523. The respondent companies filed rebuttal arguments on July 23, 2007, and the petitioner filed additional comments and clarifications of its allegation on August 13, 2007. After fully considering all of these submissions, we have determined that the threshold requirements set forth in the Act and the Department's regulations for initiation of an upstream subsidy investigation have been met. However, we have simultaneously decided to defer the conduct of the upstream subsidy investigation until the first administrative review, if a countervailing duty order is issued and such a review is requested. *See* section 703(g)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. A complete discussion of our decisions to both initiate an upstream investigation and defer the conduct of such investigation can be found in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrently with this notice ( *Decision Memorandum* ) and hereby adopted by this notice. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised by interested parties in their case briefs and rebuttal briefs on the *Preliminary Determination* and the *Post-Preliminary Analysis* , are discussed in the *Decision Memorandum* . A list of the subsidy programs and of the issues which parties have raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all of the subsidy programs, and issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the CRU. A complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* is available at http://www.trade.gov/ia under the heading “ **Federal Register** Notices.” The paper copy and the electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Final Determination In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined a single subsidy rate for the two cross-owned producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. We determine the total countervailable subsidy rate to be: Producer/Exporter Rate PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk./PT. Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills 22.48% All Others 22.48% In accordance with sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have set the all- others rate as the rate for TK/PD because it was the only producer/exporter under investigation. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with our affirmative *Preliminary Determination* , we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of CFS from Indonesia, which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 9, 2007, the date of the publication of our *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for merchandise entered on or after August 7, 2007, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries made on or after April 9, 2007 and before August 7, 2007. If the International Trade Commission

(ITC)issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty order, reinstate suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act for all entries, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise at the rates indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 17, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I: Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Initiation and Deferral of Upstream Subsidy Investigation IV. Subsidies Valuation Information A. Cross-Ownership B. Attribution of Subsidies Provided to Cross-Owned Input Suppliers C. Allocation Period D. Loan Benchmark and Discount Rate E. Creditworthiness V. Application of Facts Available and Use of an Adverse Inference VI. Analysis of Programs A. Programs Determined to Be Countervailable 1. GOI Provision of Standing Timber for Less Than Adequate Remuneration 2. GOI's Log Export Ban 3. Subsidized Funding for Reforestation (Hutan Tanaman Industria or HTI Program): “Zero Interest” Rate Loans 4. Debt Forgiveness Through the GOI's Acceptance of Instruments that Had No Market Value 5. Debt Forgiveness through SMG/APP's the Buyback of Its Own Debt from the GOI B. Program Determined to Be Not Countervailable Subsidized Funding for Reforestation (Hutan Tanaman Industria or HTI Program): Government Capital Infusions into Joint Venture Forest Plantation C. Program Determined To Be Not Used Subsidized Funding for Reforestation (Hutan Tanaman Industria or HTI Program): Commercial Rate Loans VII. Analysis of Comments *Comment 1:* Whether the Department Should Find that SMG/APP Received Upstream Subsidies on Purchases of Timber from Non-Cross Owned Entities and Consider the Legality Under which This Timber was Harvested *Comment 2:* Whether the Department's Cross-Ownership Regulations Provide for the Attribution of Upstream Subsidies to Cross-Owned Companies *Comment 3:* Cross-Ownership of AA and WKS with IK, Lontar, TK and PD *Comment 4:* Widjaja Family Interest In Purinusa and Cross-Ownership *Comment 5:* Cross-Ownership Between AA and WKS *Comment 6:* Cross-Ownership Between WKS and Purinusa *Comment 7:* Cross-Ownership Between AA and Purinusa *Comment 8:* Cross-Ownership of Certain Additional Companies That Were Preliminarily Found to be Cross-Owned with Companies in the APP/SMG CFS Group *Comment 9:* Whether the Provision of Standing Acacia is the Provision of a Good by the GOI to the SMG/APP Forestry Companies *Comment 10:* Specificity of the GOI's Provision of Standing Timber for Less Than Adequate Remuneration *Comment 11:* Use of Malaysian Export Statistics as the Starting Point for Deriving Stumpage Benchmarks *Comment 12:* The Stumpage Rate Calculation Provided by Respondents in their Expert's Report *Comment 13:* Calculation of Species-Specific Benchmarks *Comment 14:* Whether to Adjust the Benchmark for Movement Expenses *Comment 15:* Whether to Use Monthly Exchange Rates *Comment 16:* Whether to Adjust the Benchmark for Export Royalty Fees and G&A Expenses *Comment 17:* Profit Adjustment to the Benchmark *Comment 18:* Use of Actual Versus Accrued Stumpage Payments *Comment 19:* Use of the FAO's Conversion Factors *Comment 20:* Whether to Adjust WKS' Log Harvest *Comment 21:* Adjustments to the Sales Denominator *Comment 22:* Treatment of Alleged Illegal Logging in Indonesia *Comment 23:* Indications of Illegal Logging Practices in Subsidizing Indonesia's CFS Paper Industry *Comment 24:* Examination of Log Purchases from Non-Cross Owned Entities Under the Log Export Ban *Comment 25:* The Legality of the WTO's Findings on Export Restraints *Comment 26:* Whether Respondent Companies Cured Any Deficiency with Respect to Settling Debt with COEs *Comment 27:* Specificity of IBRA's Acceptance of BII Shares and COEs for the Repayment of SMG/APP Debt *Comment 28:* The Effect of IBRA's Outright Debt Forgiveness on the Specificity of the Acceptance of COEs for SMG/APP Debt *Comment 29:* Benefit from IBRA's Acceptance of COEs as Settlement of Debt *Comment 30:* Whether an Adverse Inference Can be Applied in Determining that Orleans was Affiliated with SMG/APP *Comment 31:* Specificity of IBRA's Sale of SMG/APP Debt to an Affiliate of the Original Debtor *Comment 32:* Whether the Information the Department Relied Upon Was Speculative and Circumstantial *Comment 33:* Procedural Abnormalities in IBRA's Sale of the SMG/APP Debt and Specificity *Comment 34:* Effect of the Lack of Reduction in Debt on the Countervailability of the Sale of SMG/APP's Debt to Orleans *Comment 35:* The Appropriateness of the Department's Reliance on Facts Available with an Adverse Inference *Comment 36:* Whether A Government Can Provide a Financial Contribution When the Act is Illegal VIII. Recommendation [FR Doc. E7-21040 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-907] Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) has made a final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of coated free sheet

(CFS)paper from the People's Republic of China. For information on the estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section, below. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton or David Neubacher, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0371 or

(202)482-5823, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petitioner The petitioner in this investigation is the NewPage Corporation (petitioner). Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. Case History The following events have occurred since the announcement of the preliminary determination on March 30, 2007, and subsequent publication in the **Federal Register** on April 9, 2007. *See Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Amended Affirmative Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination* , 72 FR 17484 (April 9, 2007) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). On April 9, 2007, Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.

(GE)and the petitioner submitted ministerial error allegations relating to the *Preliminary Determination* . We addressed these ministerial error allegations in a May 11, 2007, memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled *Ministerial Error Allegations* , which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main Department building. On April 12, 2007, the Department requested that GE amend the bracketing and resubmit its March 9, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response, which GE did on April 17, 2007. We issued a supplemental questionnaire to the Government of the People's Republic of China

(GOC)on April 23, 2007, and to GE and Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd. (Shandong Chenming) on April 20, 2007. We received the GOC's supplemental questionnaire response on May 13, 2007, Shandong Chenming's supplemental questionnaire response on May 18, 2007, and GE's supplemental response on May 25, 2007. On May 25, 2007, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shandong Chenming, but did not receive a response. The GOC, GE, the petitioner, and interested parties also submitted factual information, comments, and arguments at numerous instances prior to the final determination based on various deadlines for submissions of factual information and/or arguments established by the Department subsequent to the *Preliminary Determination* . On May 2, 2007, the Department published notification of alignment of the final determinations in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of CFS paper from the People's Republic of China (PRC). *See Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea: Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determinations with Final Antidumping Duty Determinations* , 72 FR 24277 (May 2, 2007). The Department subsequently postponed the final determinations for the antidumping and countervailing investigations of CFS paper from the PRC. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007). On June 13, 2007, we received a letter from Shandong Chenming withdrawing its participation in the investigation and requesting that all of its business proprietary information be removed from the record and destroyed. On June 27, 2007, the Department notified Shandong Chenming that it had removed and destroyed the company's submitted proprietary information from the record of this investigation and would direct all interested parties under the Administrative Protective Order

(APO)to certify its destruction. All interested parties certified destruction of Shandong Chenming's proprietary information. From July 11 to July 28, 2007, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOC and GE. On August 30, 2007, we issued our preliminary determination regarding the creditworthiness of GE and its cross-owned companies. We addressed our preliminary findings in a August 30, 2007, memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled *Preliminary Creditworthiness Determination for Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. and its Cross-Owned Companies* , which is on file in the CRU. We received case briefs from the GOC; GE; the petitioner; and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC on September 7, 2007. The same parties submitted rebuttal briefs on September 12, 2007. We held a hearing for this investigation on September 18, 2007. Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes coated free sheet paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes. Coated free sheet paper is produced from not-more-than 10 percent by weight mechanical or combined chemical/mechanical fibers. Coated free sheet paper is coated with kaolin (China clay) or other inorganic substances, with or without a binder, and with no other coating. Coated free sheet paper may be surface-colored, surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, or perforated. The subject merchandise includes single- and double-side-coated free sheet paper; coated free sheet paper in both sheet or roll form; and is inclusive of all weights, brightness levels, and finishes. The terms “wood free” or “art” paper may also be used to describe the imported product. Excluded from the scope are:

(1)coated free sheet paper that is imported printed with final content printed text or graphics;

(2)base paper to be sensitized for use in photography; and

(3)paper containing by weight 25 percent or more cotton fiber. Coated free sheet paper is classifiable under subheadings 4810.13.1900, 4810.13.2010, 4810.13.2090, 4810.13.5000, 4810.13.7040, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.7040, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, and 4810.19.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. Scope Comments On August 20, August 28, and September 10, 2007, the petitioner requested that the Department clarify the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of CFS paper from Indonesia, Korea and the People's Republic of China. Specifically, the petitioner asked the Department to “clarify that the scope of the investigation includes coated free sheet paper containing hardwood BCTMP.” Because this was a general issue pertaining to all six investigations, the Department set up a general issues file to handle this scope request. A hearing on the scope request was held on September 26, 2007. The hearing comprised a public session, a closed session for the antidumping investigation from Korea, and a closed session for the countervailing duty investigation from the PRC. After considering the comments submitted by the parties to these investigations, we have determined not to adopt the scope clarification sought by the petitioner. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled “Scope Clarification Request: NewPage Corporation,” dated concurrently with this notice, which is appended to the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Determination” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 17, 2007 ( *Decision Memorandum* ). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the *Decision Memorandum* , which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an Appendix is a list of the issues that 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 investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Use of Adverse Facts Available Sections 776(a)(1) and

(2)of the Act provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person:

(A)withholds information that has been requested;

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

(e)of section 782 of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding; or

(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available

(AFA)information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See Statement of Administrative Action*

(SAA)accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. *See* SAA at 869. The Department has concluded that it is appropriate to base the final determination for Shandong Chenming on facts otherwise available. Shandong Chenming failed to respond fully to the Department's questionnaires and did not respond at all to one questionnaire. Also, on June 13, 2007, Shandong Chenming withdrew its proprietary information from the record. Thus, Shandong Chenming withheld information requested by the Department. Consequently, the use of facts otherwise available is warranted under section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. In selecting from among the facts available, the Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act because, in addition to not fully responding to all of our requests for information, as of June 13, 2007, Shandong Chenming withdrew from all participation in the investigation and did not provide the Department with the opportunity to verify the information it did submit. Thus, Shandong Chenming failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability, and our final determination is based on total AFA. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from

(1)the petition,

(2)a final determination in the investigation,

(3)any previous review or determination, or

(4)any information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the proceeding. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Analysis of Programs.” The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan* ; 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 870. In choosing the appropriate balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990). For these reasons the Department is relying on the highest calculated final subsidy rates for income tax, VAT, and policy lending programs of the other producer/exporter of the subject merchandise in this investigation, GE, to calculate the AFA rate for Shandong Chenming. We do not need to corroborate these rates because they are not considered secondary information as they are based on information obtained in the course of this investigation, pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for the companies under investigation, GE and Shandong Chenming. According to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department excludes any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. As Shandong Chenming's rate was calculated under section 776 of the Act, we have used the rate for GE as the “all others” rate. Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. 7.40 %% Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd. 44.25 %% All Others 7.40 %% As a result of our *Preliminary Determination* and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of coated free sheet paper from the PRC which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 9, 2007, the date of the publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty purposes for subject merchandise entered on or after August 7, 2007, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries made from April 9, 2007, through August 7, 2007. We will issue a countervailing duty order and reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act if the International Trade Commission

(ITC)issues a final affirmative injury determination, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an APO, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 violation which is subject to sanction. This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 17, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Applicability of the CVD Law to China Comment 2: The Administrative Procedures Act

(APA)Claim Comment 3: The Department's Justification for its Change in Practice from *Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary* Comment 4: China's WTO Accession Protocol Comment 5: Retroactive Application of the CVD Law to China Comment 6: Comparison of the Department's Findings in the *Georgetown Memo* and the *August 30 Market Economy Status Memo* Comment 7: Application of Adverse Facts Available to the GOC Comment 8: Policy Lending Comment 9: Countervailability of Foreign-denominated Loans Comment 10: Benchmark for Policy Lending Comment 11: Adjustment for Long-term Interest Rate Benchmark Comment 12: Creditworthiness of GE and its Cross-owned Companies Comment 13: Application of a Risk Premium to the Short-term Loan Benchmark Comment 14: Specificity of Programs for FIEs Comment 15: Over-calculation of the Two Free/Three Half Benefit Comment 16: Specificity of VAT Programs Comment 17: Attribution of GHS' Subsidies to GE Comment 18: Attribution of Subsidies Bestowed on Input Suppliers Comment 19: Whether the Department's Cross-ownership Regulations Provide for the Attribution of Upstream Subsidies to Cross-owned Companies Comment 20: Attribution of Subsidies Bestowed on the Forestry Companies to CFS Comment 21: Rate Adjustment for GE's *Ad Valorem* Subsidy Rate Comment 22: Subsidies to Forestry Companies Discovered After the Preliminary Determination Comment 23: Correction to GE's Domestic Sales Value Comment 24: Application of Adverse Facts Available to Chenming Comment 25: Certification of Non-Reimbursement of Duties [FR Doc. E7-21046 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 85-14A18] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of Application (#85-14A18) to Amend the Export Trade Certificate of Review Issued to U.S. Shippers Association. SUMMARY: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application to amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review. This notice summarizes the proposed amendment and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration,

(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-mail at: *oetca@ita.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct. Request for Public Comments Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five

(5)copies, plus two

(2)copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021-X H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 85-14A18.” The U.S. Shippers Association's original Certificate was issued on June 3, 1986 (51 FR 20873, June 9, 1986), and last amended on April 6, 2006 (71 FR 18721, April 12, 2006). A summary of the current application for an amendment follows. *Summary of the Application:* *Applicant:* U.S. Shippers Association (“USSA”), 344 Canford Park East, Canton, Michigan 48187. *Contact:* John S. Chinn, Project Director, Telephone:

(734)927-4328. *Application No.:* 85-14A18. *Date Deemed Submitted:* October 18, 2007. *Proposed Amendment:* USSA seeks to amend its Certificate to add the following company as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): Cook Composites and Polymers Co., North Kansas City, Missouri (controlling entity: TOTAL Holdings USA, Inc., Houston Texas). Dated: October 19, 2007. Jeffrey C. Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E7-20972 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Consent Motion To Terminate Panel Review. AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Consent Motion to Terminate the Panel Review of the final determination made by the Canadian Border Services Agency respecting “Unprocessed grain corn, excluding seed corn (for reproductive purposes), sweet corn, and popping corn, originating in or exported from the United States of America” (Secretariat File No. CDA-USA-2006-1904-01). SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Notice of Consent Motion to Terminate the Panel Review by the complainants and pursuant to Rule 78(a) of the *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Review* , this panel review is terminated as of October 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,

(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination. Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews* (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the **Federal Register** on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). The panel review in this matter was requested and terminated pursuant to these Rules. Dated: October 19, 2007. Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E7-20974 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Certain Non-Market Economies: Market-Oriented Enterprise; Request for Comment AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) requests public comment on whether it should consider granting market-economy treatment to individual respondents in antidumping proceedings involving the People's Republic of China (“China”), the conditions under which individual firms should be granted market-economy treatment, and how such treatment might affect our antidumping calculation for such qualifying respondents. DATES: Comments must be submitted by November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments (original and six copies) should be sent to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Norton, Senior International Economist, or Anthony Hill, Senior International Economist, Office of Policy, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC, 20230; telephone 202-482-1579 or 202-482-1843, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In antidumping proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, it is the Department's usual practice to calculate the normal value for allegedly dumped merchandise being imported into the United States by valuing the NME producer's factors of production using, to the extent possible, prices from a market economy that is at a comparable level of economic development and that is also a significant producer of comparable merchandise. *See* section 773(c)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Specifically, section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides for the use of factors of production to determine normal value if two conditions are met:

(A)the subject merchandise is exported from an NME country; and

(B)the administering authority finds that available information does not permit the normal value of the subject merchandise to be determined as is done for respondents in market economy countries. In all past NME proceedings involving China, the Department has found that both conditions of section 773(c)(1) are met and has calculated the normal value based on prices and costs from a surrogate country, in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and

(4)of the Act. The Department recently affirmed China's NME status. *See* Memorandum for David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China's Status as a Non-Market Economy (August 30, 2006) (“August 30th Memorandum”) (on file in the Central Records Unit {“CRU”}, Room-B-099, on the record of case number A-570-901). In conducting this review of China's NME status in accordance with section 771(18)(B) of the Act, the Department concluded that, while China has enacted significant and sustained economic reforms, the Chinese government has preserved a significant role for the state in the economy. The Department concluded that the limits the Chinese government has placed on the role of market forces are sufficient to preclude China's designation as a market economy under the U.S. antidumping law. Notwithstanding China's continued designation as an NME, the August 30th Memorandum noted that China has undertaken numerous positive reforms. These are discussed more fully in the Department's March 29, 2007 memorandum, *Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet (“CFS”) Paper from the People's Republic of China - Whether the Analytical Elements of the Georgetown Steel Opinion are Applicable to China's Present-day Economy* , (March 29, 2007) (“Georgetown Steel Memorandum”) (on file in the CRU on the record of case number C-570-907). The Georgetown Steel Memorandum notes that China's economy has evolved significantly over time and its present-day economy “features both a certain degree of private initiative as well as significant government intervention, combining market processes with continued state guidance.” *Id* . at 7. Further, the Department found that while private industry now dominates many sectors of the Chinese economy and entrepreneurship is flourishing, China's economy is best characterized as one in which constrained market mechanisms operate alongside (and sometimes, in spite of) government plans. *Id* . at 9-10. Although the limits the Chinese Government has placed on the role of market forces are not consistent with recognition of China as a market economy under the U.S. antidumping law, the evolution in China's economy nevertheless has led the Department to conclude that it is possible to determine whether the state has bestowed a benefit upon a Chinese producer ( *i.e.* , a subsidy can be identified and measured) and whether any such benefit is specific. *Id* . at 9. *See also Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination* , 72 FR 17484 (April 9, 2007). The Department also stated in the Georgetown Steel Memorandum that the evolution of China's economy, together with the features and characteristics of China's present-day economy, including a growing private sector, suggest that modification of some aspects of the Department's current NME antidumping policy and practice with regard to China might be warranted, such as the conditions under which the Department would grant an individual respondent in China market-economy treatment in some or all respects. Following the conclusion in the Georgetown Steel Memorandum that the evolution in China's economy might warrant changes to the Department's NME practice, the Department invited public comment on a possible market-oriented enterprise (“MOE”) test that could be introduced in future NME AD proceedings in a **Federal Register** notice published on May 25, 2007 (72 FR 29302). Given the Department's analysis in the Georgetown Steel Memorandum regarding China's present-day economy, the May, 25, 2007 notice requested public comment on the conditions under which the Department might grant market-economy treatment to individual Chinese respondents (as well as possibly other NME respondents), and, if so, how this might affect our antidumping duty calculations for such enterprises. The Department received 39 comments in response to this notice, which are available (along with the May 25, 2007 request for comment) on the Import Administration Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/nme-moe/nme-moe-cmt-20070625-index.html)* . Request for Comment The Department has carefully considered all of the comments it received in response to its first request for comment. The comments identify two broad competing concerns which the Department now seeks to clarify in this second request for comment. The first is that various parties have argued that there may be prices within China that are sufficiently market-based that they can be used in the calculation of normal value, notwithstanding China's overall status as an NME. The Department has the legal authority to introduce an MOE test, these parties argue, and introducing such a test would recognize the reform efforts that China has undertaken since the Department adopted its current NME methodology. The Department agrees that to the extent that market-based prices exist in China that might be useable in the AD calculation, it would be appropriate to find a way to identify them through an MOE test. However, other parties argue that the Department has no legal authority to introduce a MOE test. These parties also point out that any MOE test that attempted to identify market-based prices within an NME would be very difficult to administer, particularly since prices within an economy are interconnected. That is, these parties argue, even if the Department could identify which companies manage their operations on a market basis, these firms would still operate in a broader NME environment. In particular, firms' input prices could be affected by non-market considerations. Such a distortion of an otherwise “market-oriented” firm's acquisition prices could happen either directly, if these firms purchase inputs from non-profit maximizing SOEs, or indirectly, if macroeconomic NME distortions relating to land or capital affect the relevant input market. It would be impossible, these parties argue, to parse out the numerous distortions that could affect each input price, unless perhaps the Department and parties conducted a laborious analysis of each input price. However, anything less than a full analysis, these parties argue, would rapidly undermine China's overall NME status. Because there are complex legal and administrative arguments on each side of this issue, the Department is requesting further comment on any potential MOE test. As noted above and described more fully in the August 30th Memorandum, market forces are not yet sufficiently developed in China to warrant market economy status. However, as noted in the Georgetown Steel Memorandum, China's economy has evolved to the point where domestic prices of certain market-oriented firms might be useable in the dumping calculation. In submitting comments, we ask parties to further consider whether there is a legal basis for a MOE test. We also ask parties to consider administrative feasability in proposing how the Department could identify an MOE operating within a broader NME environment. We ask parties also to consider to what extent, and under what conditions, the Department should rely on an MOE's prices and costs, particularly for those inputs that are inextricably linked to the broader operating economic environment, *i.e.* , labor, land and capital. While an enterprise may be market-oriented, the cost of certain inputs obtained in the broader economy may necessarily be determined on a non-market basis. Given such a situation in China, we request parties to consider administrative feasability in proposing the extent and conditions under which a finding of an MOE might be limited. For example, how appropriate and feasible would it be to consider using a respondent's own prices and costs within China in conjunction with certain surrogate prices and costs in our antidumping duty calculations? Submission of Comments Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and six copies of each set of comments by the date specified above. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in the development of any changes to its practice. The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form. The Department recommends submission of comments in electronic form to accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted either by e-mail to the webmaster below, or on CD-ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment. Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the public in Portable Document Format

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

(202)482-0866, e-mail address: *webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov* . Dated: October 17, 2007. David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21053 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Investigations; Request for Comment AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) seeks public comment on its development of a methodology for determining whether targeted dumping is occurring in antidumping investigations. The Department seeks input on standards and tests that may be appropriate in a targeted dumping analysis. DATES: Comments must be submitted within thirty days from the publication of this notice. ADDRESSES: Written comments (original and six copies) should be sent to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, 14th Street & Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Hill, Economist, Office of Policy, or Michael Rill, Director, Antidumping Policy, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1843 or 202-482-3058, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Pursuant to section 777A(d)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”), the Department normally will calculate antidumping duty margins in investigations by comparing weighted-average export prices with weighted-average normal values or transaction-specific export prices with transaction-specific normal values. Section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act allows the Department to use an alternative method for determining the existence of margins of dumping in an investigation using what is commonly referred to as the targeted dumping comparison methodology. The alternative method allows the Department to compare transaction-specific export prices to weighted-average normal values. In order to use this alternative method, the Act requires the Department to find that there is a pattern of export prices (or constructed export prices) that differ significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time. *See* 777A(D)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. In addition, the Act requires the Department to explain why the differences cannot be taken into account using one of the normal calculation methodologies. *See* 777A(D)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.414(f)(1)(i) further require that a determination of targeted dumping be made “through the use of, among other things, standard and appropriate statistical techniques.” The Department's experience with regard to the use of this methodology has been very limited. In the antidumping investigation of certain pasta from Italy, petitioners made an allegation that targeted dumping was occurring, but the Department found that it was unsubstantiated and did not accept the allegation. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy* , 61 FR 30326 (June 14, 1996). Reviewing that determination, the Court of International Trade found that the Department had dismissed the allegation even though it had not articulated a test by which an allegation should be made. *See Borden, Inc. v. U.S.* , 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1228-31 (CIT March 26, 1998) (“ *Borden* ”). On remand, the Department created a test (the “Pasta Test”) to analyze U.S. price data in that case, but found no targeted dumping. *See Borden, Inc. v. U.S.* , 1999 WL 397968, *2 (CIT June 4, 1999) (“ *Borden Remand* ”) (citing Department's *Remand Redetermination* (“ *Remand Redetermination* ”) at 17). However, the Department noted that it reserved the discretion to alter its methodology in future cases. *See Borden Remand* , 1999 WL 397968, *1 (citing *Remand Redetermination* at 15). An allegation of targeted dumping was made in the investigation of fresh tomatoes from Mexico. The Department determined that there was not an adequate basis on which to accept the allegation on the grounds that petitioners used a benchmark of ten percent to claim that price differences were significant even though prices for tomatoes were very volatile, changing by more than ten percent within a day, and petitioners did not establish that there was a pattern of price differences. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico* , 61 FR 56608, 56610 (November 1, 1996). Another allegation of targeted dumping was made in the investigation of stainless steel wire rod from Taiwan. Again, the Department found that the petitioners' analysis failed to meet the basic requirements of the statute. The allegation simply compared average prices to different customers without any further analysis. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Taiwan* , 63 FR 10836, 10837 (March 5, 1998). The Department's most recent experience was in the antidumping investigation of coated free sheet paper from the Republic of Korea. In that proceeding, petitioners alleged that certain respondents were targeting certain customers and regions. The Department accepted this allegation, finding that petitioners had met the statutory requirement for showing that there was a pattern of prices that differ significantly among purchasers and regions while also acknowledging that the Department had not yet established a general set of standards for analyzing an allegation of targeted dumping. *See* Memorandum to David M. Spooner entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from South Korea - Targeted Dumping,” from Stephen J. Claeys, dated September 7, 2007. Request for Comment Given the Department's limited experience with targeted dumping allegations and analysis and certain undefined terms in the statute and regulations, the Department requests comments and suggestions on what guidelines, thresholds, and tests it should use in determining whether targeted dumping is occurring. For example, while the statute requires a showing that there is a “pattern” of price differences, there is no definition or explanation as to what constitutes a pattern. What standards or methods should be used to show a pattern of price differences? Another requirement is that price differences be “significant.” What threshold should there be, if any, for showing that price differences are significant? Furthermore, the regulations require the use of “standard and appropriate statistical techniques.” What would be the appropriate statistical techniques to use to show targeted dumping? Submission of Comments Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and six copies of each set of comments by the date specified above. The Department will consider all comments received by the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in its development of a targeted dumping analysis. The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form. The Department also requests submission of comments in electronic form to accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted either by e-mail to the webmaster below, or on CD-ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment. Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the public in Portable Document Format

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

(202)482-0866, email address: *webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov* . Dated: October 17, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21045 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Emergency Beacon Registrations AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before December 24, 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 Jeffrey Shoup, 301-817-3806 or *Jeffrey.Shoup@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract An international system exists to use satellites to detect and locate ships, aircraft, or individuals in distress if they are equipped with an emergency radio beacon. Persons purchasing a digital, distress beacon, operating in the frequency range of 406.000 to 406.100 MHz, must register it with NOAA. The data provided by registration can assist in identifying who is in trouble and in suppressing false alarms. II. Method of Collection Paper and online registration is available. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0295. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; state, local or tribal governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 20,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 20 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 6,667. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $8,200. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: October 19, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21026 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD48 U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product Draft Report 4.7 “Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study” AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comments. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes this notice to announce a 45-day public comment period for the draft report titled, U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.7: “Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study.” This draft document is being released solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. After consideration of comments received on the draft report, a revised version along with the comments received will be published on the CCSP web site. DATES: Comments must be received by December 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: The draft Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.7: “Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study.” is posted on the CCSP Web site at: *www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-7/public-review-draft/default.htm* . Detailed instructions for making comments on this draft report are provided on the SAP webpage. Comments must be prepared in accordance to these instructions and must be submitted to: *4.7-transport@usgcrp.gov* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Fabien Laurier, Climate Change Science Program Office, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250, Washington, DC 20006, Telephone:

(202)419 3481. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCSP was established by the President in 2002 to coordinate and integrate scientific research on global and climate changes sponsored by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. The CCSP is charged with preparing information resources that promote climate-related discussions and decisions, including scientific synthesis and assessment analyses that support evaluation of important policy issues. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.7 identifies the potential effects of climate variability and change in transportation infrastructure and systems in the central U.S. Gulf coast. The purpose of this study is to develop knowledge and tools that will assist transportation decision makers in incorporating climate-related trend information into transportation system planning, design, engineering, and operational decisions. Implications for all transportation modes-surface, marine, and aviation-are addressed. Dated: October 17, 2007. William J. Brennan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs, and Acting Director, Climate Change Science Program. [FR Doc. E7-21048 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 08-24] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM,

(703)601-3740. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 08-24 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: October 19, 2007. L.M. Bynum, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN25OC07.005 EN25OC07.006 EN25OC07.007 EN25OC07.008 EN25OC07.009 EN25OC07.010 [FR Doc. 07-5276 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am]

Notices. Notice