18628 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Notices 

benefits of innovations flow, at least in 

part, to buyers, are there ways to 

identify the flow of innovations across 

firms and sectors? 

3. Identification of firm-specific data 

items that could enable comparisons 

and aggregation. Current corporate 

innovation measurement appears to be 

done primarily on either a project or a 

portfolio basis. Are these measurement 

practices sufficiently widespread and 

uniform to make data collection on 

either of these bases practical? Is it 

possible or necessary to collect 

information on company culture, 

incentive structures, and organizational 

change? If customer satisfaction is an 

important measure of an innovative 

firm, how can that be captured? How 

important is it to distinguish between 

types of innovation (i.e. radical versus 

incremental)? 

What data would be needed to 

differentiate the characteristics of 

innovative firms within industry sectors 

from non-innovative firms? What are the 

most important measures of the 

underlying process of how innovation 

and productivity advances are initiated 

or stimulated? Could/should an 

understanding of innovation from the 

consumer perspective be developed? 

Could data items from SEC filings be 

used to enhance understanding of 

innovation in public companies? Are 

there proxies for relative innovative 

success (e.g. percent of total revenue 

attributable to new—or significantly 

improved to the point where they could 

be considered new—products, services, 

or processes introduced within the last 

two years into markets where a firm has 

a growing market share) that would 

provide insight into relative innovative 

strength? Is two years long enough? 

4. Identification of specific ‘‘holes’’ in 

the current data collection system that 

limit our ability to measure innovation. 

Some specific types of data holes were 

identified during the meeting, including 

lack of data on firm formation, 

intellectual property licensing costs as a 

type of purchased input, and 

insufficient product detail. What should 

be the prioritized list of specific data 

items needed to fill the holes? 

Limitations on our ability to link and 

coordinate across various data sets were 

also mentioned as a hole or deficiency 

of our current data collection system. 

Are there cost-effective ways of building 

on existing data sets to develop more 

information on innovation drivers and 

their link to success? How could data 

sharing and cooperation among federal 

agencies be improved insofar as such 

agencies maintain data series related to 

the measurement of innovation? Could 

existing private and/or foreign data be 

combined with existing official 

statistical series in order to better 

measure innovation? Are there changes 

that could be made to make such 

combinations possible or easier? 

To assist the Advisory Committee in 

evaluating and comparing specific ideas 

for new or improved innovation 

measurement, comments on proposals 

for new or improved innovation 

measurement should provide the 

following information: 

1. Description of proposal. Proposals 

for new or improved innovation 

measurement should include the 

following: 

• Specific description of the proposed 

change. 

• Identification of the specific 

Committee category to which the 

proposal applies. 

• Rationale for the proposed change. 

• Data description, sources and 

method of collection. 

• Approximate cost and burden 

estimate. 

2. Impact of proposal on innovation 

measurement. Proposals should include: 

• Description of how proposal 

improves measurement of innovation as 

defined by the Advisory Committee. 

• Description of the particular 

elements of innovation measurement 

that are improved by the proposal. 

• Description of how the proposal 

addresses the issues and questions 

raised by the Committee. 

• Description of how the new or 

improved measure would provide 

appropriate signals of changes in 

business behavior for the purpose of 

informing policy debates. 

Page Limit—Submissions should be 

limited to a maximum length of 10 

pages. Identification and Cover Sheet—

Each page of the submission should be 

clearly marked with the submitter’s 

name (and organization, if applicable), 

date of submission, and contact 

information (if the submitter chooses to 

provide it). Each submission should be 

clearly marked as originating from one 

of the following categories of submitters: 

Individuals, Businesses, Government, 

Academia, or Organizations and 

Associations. 

All comments must be submitted to 

the address indicated in this notice. The 

Department requires that all comments 

be submitted in written form. 

The Department encourages interested 

persons who wish to comment to do so 

at the earliest possible time. The period 

for submission of comments will close 

on May 11, 2007. 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 part or all of the material be 

treated confidentially because of its 

business proprietary nature or for any 

other reason. All comments submitted 

in response to this notice will be a 

matter of public record. They will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying and posted on the Advisory 

Committee’s Web site at http:// 

www.innovationmetrics.gov. 

Dated: April 9, 2007. 

Elizabeth (E.R.) Anderson, 

Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 07–1827 Filed 4–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–533–809) 

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges 

from India: Notice of Final Results of 

New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 31, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

forged stainless steel flanges from India. 

See Certain Forged Stainless Steel 

Flanges From India; Preliminary Results 

of New Shipper Review, 72 FR 4483 

(January 31, 2007) (Preliminary Results). 

This new shipper review covers Kunj 

Forgings, Pvt., Ltd. (Kunj), a 

manufacturer and exporter of the subject 

merchandise. The period of review is 

February 1, 2005, through January 31, 

2006. 

We did not receive any comments 

from parties, and we have not made any 

changes to our analysis. The final 

weighted–average dumping margin for 

Kunj is thus unchanged from our 

preliminary results of review, and is 

shown in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2924 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Notices 18629 

Background 

On January 31, 2007, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

preliminary results of new shipper 

review of forged stainless steel flanges 

from India for the period February 1, 

2005, through January 31, 2006. See 

Preliminary Results. No party 

commented on the preliminary results. 

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain forged stainless steel flanges, 

both finished and not finished, 

generally manufactured to specification 

ASTM A–182, and made in alloys such 

as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope 

includes five general types of flanges. 

They are weld–neck, used for butt–weld 

line connection; threaded, used for 

threaded line connections; slip–on and 

lap joint, used with stub–ends/butt–

weld line connections; socket weld, 

used to fit pipe into a machined 

recession; and blind, used to seal off a 

line. The sizes of the flanges within the 

scope range generally from one to six 

inches; however, all sizes of the above–

described merchandise are included in 

the scope. Specifically excluded from 

the scope of this order are cast stainless 

steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges 

generally are manufactured to 

specification ASTM A–351. The flanges 

subject to this order are currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under review is dispositive of whether 

or not the merchandise is covered by the 

scope of the order. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

As noted above, no parties 

commented on the preliminary results. 

The Department is making no changes 

to its preliminary analysis. 

Final Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that a weighted–average 

dumping margin of 1.52 percent exists 

for Kunj for the period February 1, 2005, 

through January 31, 2006. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b). 

The Department calculated importer–

specific duty assessment rates (or, when 

the importer was unknown by the 

respondent, customer–specific duty 

assessment rates) on the basis of the 

ratio of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

observations involving each importer (or 

customer, when appropriate) to the total 

entered value of the examined sales 

observations for that importer (or 

customer, when appropriate). We intend 

to issue assessment instructions to CBP 

15 days after the date of publication of 

these final results of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know the merchandise was destined 

for the United States. In such instances, 

we will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the all–others rate 

if there is no rate for an intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction. For a discussion of this 

clarification, see Notice of Policy 

Concerning Assessment of Antidumping 

Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of 

this notice of final results of new 

shipper review for all shipments of 

subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication, 

as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the 

Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for 

Kunj (i.e., the subject merchandise both 

manufactured and exported by Kunj) 

will be 1.52 percent; (2) the cash deposit 

rate for exporters who received a rate in 

a prior segment of the proceeding will 

continue to be the rate assigned in that 

segment of the proceeding; (3) the cash 

deposit rate for entries of subject 

merchandise exported by Kunj but not 

manufactured by Kunj will continue to 

be the ‘‘All Others’’ rate (i.e., 162.14 

percent) or the rate applicable to the 

manufacturer, if so established; and (4) 

if neither the exporter nor the 

manufacturer is a firm covered in this 

review, or a prior segment of the 

proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 

162.14 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate 

established in the less–than-fair–value 

investigation. See Amended Final 

Determination and Antidumping Duty 

Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel 

Flanges from India; 59 FR 5994 

(February 9, 1994). These cash deposit 

requirements shall remain in effect until 

publication of the final results of the 

next administrative review. There are no 

changes to the rates applicable to any 

other companies under this 

antidumping duty order. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred, and in the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also is the only reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. 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 the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: April 9, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–7082 Filed 4–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–504 

Petroleum Wax Candles from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 28, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register a notice announcing the 

initiation of a new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on petroleum 

wax candles from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’) for Hangzhou Fashion 

Living Co., Ltd (‘‘Fashion Living’’). See 

Petroleum Wax Candles from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

New Shipper Review, 72 FR 14,521 

(March 28, 2007) (‘‘Fashion Living 

Initiation’’). The period of review 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES