Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Notices 9921 

time. During the third quarter of 2006, 

the QFR Program introduced an 

encrypted Internet Data Collection 

System (Census Taker) for optional use 

as a substitute for the paper form mailed 

to all companies. Census Taker is an 

electronic version of the data collection 

instrument. It provides improved 

quality with automatic data checks and 

is context-sensitive to assist the data 

provider in identifying potential 

reporting problems before submission, 

thus reducing the need for follow-up. 

Census Taker is completed via the 

Internet eliminating the need for 

downloading software and increasing 

the integrity and confidentiality of the 

data. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0607–0432. 

Form Number: QFR 200 (MT), and 

QFR 201 (MG). 

Type of Review: Regular review. 

Affected Public: Manufacturing 

corporations with assets of $250 

thousand or more and Mining, and 

Wholesale and Retail Trade 

corporations with assets of $50 million 

or more. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

Form QFR 200 (MT)—4,108 per quarter 

= 16,432 annually 

Form QFR 201 (MG)—4,543 per quarter 

= 18,172 annually 

Total—34,604 annually 

Estimated Time per Response: 

Form QFR 200 (MT)—Average hours 3.0 

Form QFR 201 (MG)—Average hours 1.2 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 71,000. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1.8 

million. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 United States 

Code, Sections 91 and 224. 

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: March 1, 2007. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–3879 Filed 3–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–813] 

Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand; 

Final Results of the Full Sunset Review 

of the Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 27, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

preliminary results of the full sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on canned pineapple fruit (‘‘CPF’’) from 

Thailand (71 FR62994 ) pursuant to 

section 751 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). We provided 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on our preliminary results. We 

received a case brief from respondent 

interested parties, Pineapple Processors’

Group, Thai Food Processors’

Association, Thai Pineapple Canning 

Industry Corp., Ltd., Malee Sampran 

Public Co., Ltd. (‘‘Malee’’), The Siam 

Agro Industry Pineapples and Others 

Public Co., Ltd. (‘‘SAICO’’), Great 

Oriental Food Products Co., Ltd., Thai 

Pineapple Products and Other Fruits Co. 

Ltd., The Tipco Foods (Thailand) PCL, 

Pranburi Hotei Co. Ltd., and Siam Fruit 

Canning (1988) Co., Ltd. (collectively, 

‘‘Respondents’’). We received a rebuttal 

brief from the domestic interested party, 

Maui Pineapple Company (‘‘Maui’’). As 

a result of this sunset review, the 

Department finds that revocation of this 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the levels indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martha Douthit, Myrna Lobo, or Dana 

Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202–

482–5050, 202–482–2371, and 202–482–

1391, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 27, 2006, the Department 

of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of preliminary results of the full 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on CPF, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act. See Canned Pineapple Fruit 

from Thailand: Preliminary Results of 

the Full Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). In our Preliminary Results, 

we determined that revocation of the 

order would likely result in 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

with a margin of 51.16 percent for 

SAICO, 41.74 percent for Malee, and 

24.64 percent for ‘‘all others.’’ We 

received a case brief on behalf of 

Respondents. We did not receive a case 

brief from Maui. Maui filed a timely 

rebuttal brief. No hearing was requested. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

CPF, defined as pineapple processed 

and/or prepared into various product 

forms, including rings, pieces, chunks, 

tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is 

packed and cooked in metal cans with 

either pineapple juice or sugar syrup 

added. CPF is currently classifiable 

under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 

2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 

covers CPF packed in a sugar–based 

syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF 

packed without added sugar (i.e., juice–

packed). Although these HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes, 

the written description of the scope is 

dispositive. There have been no scope 

rulings for the subject order. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ for Canned Pineapple 

Fruit from Thailand: Final Results of the 

Full Sunset Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order, from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated February 27, 

2007 (Final Decision Memorandum), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

Parties may find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit, room 

B–099, of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Final Decision Memorandum can be 

accessed directly on the Web at http:// 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
9922 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Notices 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Final Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, 

we determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on CPF from 

Thailand would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted–average 

margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/ 

Producers 

Weighted 

Average 

Margin 

(percent) 

Siam Agro Industry Pineapple 

and Others Co., Ltd. (SAICO) 51.16 

Malee Sampran Factory Public 

Co., Ltd. (Malee) ..................... 41.74 

The Thai Pineapple Public Co., 

Ltd.(TIPCO) ............................. Revoked 1

Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole 

Packaged Foods Company, 

and Dole Thailand, Ltd. (collectively, Dole) ......................... Revoked 2

Siam Food Products, Ltd. (SFP) Revoked 3

Kuibiri Fruit Canning Company, 

Ltd. (KFC) ............................... Revoked 4

All Others .................................... 24.64 

1 Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination To Revoke Order in Part: Canned 

Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 69 FR 50164 

(August 13, 2004). 2 Id. 3See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, and Final Determination to 

Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit 

from Thailand, 67 FR 76719 (August 13, 

2004). 4See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination To Revoke Order in Part: Canned 

Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 69 FR 50164 

(August 13, 2004). 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of 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 violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

final results of this full sunset review in 

accordance with sections 751(c), 752, 

and 777(1)(i) of the Act. 

Dated: February 27, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–3891 Filed 3–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–274–804] 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 7, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the antidumping (AD) 

administrative review on carbon and 

alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from 

Trinidad and Tobago. The period of 

review (POR) is October 1, 2004, 

through September 30, 2005. See 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Trinidad and Tobago: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 65077 

(November 7, 2006) (Preliminary 

Results). This review covers Mittal Steel 

Point Lisas Limited (MSPL), 

manufacturer of the subject 

merchandise, and its affiliates Mittal 

Steel North America Inc. (MSNA) and 

Mittal Walker Wire Inc. (collectively, 

Mittal). Neither the petitioners nor the 

respondent commented on the 

preliminary results. 

The Department has made some 

minor corrections to the margin program 

used for the preliminary results. See 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

section below. Although we have made 

certain changes since the preliminary 

results, these final results do not differ 

from the preliminary results. The final 

results are listed below in the Final 

Results of Review section. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Moore or Dennis McClure, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3692 or (202) 482–

5973, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 7, 2006, the Department 

published the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the AD order 

on wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago. 

See Preliminary Results, 71 FR 65077. 

This review covers imports of wire rod 

from Mittal during the POR, October 1, 

2004, through September 30, 2005. We 

invited interested parties to comment on 

the Preliminary Results. As noted above, 

the Department did not receive any 

comments. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is certain hot–rolled products of carbon 

steel and alloy steel, in coils, of 

approximately round cross section, 5.00 

mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in 

solid cross-sectional diameter. 

Specifically excluded are steel 

products possessing the above–noted 

physical characteristics and meeting the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) definitions for 

(a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high 

nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and 

(e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. 

Also excluded are (f) free machining 

steel products (i.e., products that 

contain by weight one or more of the 

following elements: 0.03 percent or 

more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of 

bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, 

more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, 

more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or 

more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). 

Also excluded from the scope are 

1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod 

and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire 

rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality 

rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord 

quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or 

more but not more than 6.0 mm in 

cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an 

average partial decarburization of no 

more than 70 microns in depth 

(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 

having no non–deformable inclusions 

greater than 20 microns and no 

deformable inclusions greater than 35 

microns; (iv) having a carbon 

segregation per heat average of 3.0 or 

better using European Method NFA 04–

114; (v) having a surface quality with no 

surface defects of a length greater than 

0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to 

a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or 

fewer breaks per ton; and, (vii) 

containing by weight the following 

elements in the proportions shown: (1) 

0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less 

than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 

0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, 

of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 

percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not 

more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 

of copper, nickel and chromium. 

This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod 

is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead 

quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or 

more but not more than 7.0 mm in 

cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an 

average partial decarburization of no 

more than 70 microns in depth 

(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 

having no non–deformable inclusions 

greater than 20 microns and no 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES