42486 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Linda Engelmeier,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of Management and Organization.

[FR Doc. 97–20755 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Economic Analysis

Proposal To Collect Information on the

Initial Report on a Foreign Person’s

Direct or Indirect Acquisition,

Establishment, or Purchase of a U.S.

Business Enterprise

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment

request.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

comment on proposed and/or

continuing information collections, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before October 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Linda Engelmeier, Departmental

Forms Clearance Officer, Department of

Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection

instruments and instructions should be

directed to: R. David Belli, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of

Economic Analysis, BE–50(OC),

Washington, D.C. 20230 (Telephone:

202–606–9800).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

The Initial Report on a Foreign

Person’s Direct or Indirect Acquisition,

Establishment, or Purchase of the

Operating Assets, of a U.S. Business

Enterprise, Including Real Estate (Form

BE–13) and the Report by a U.S. Person

Who Assists or Intervenes in the

Acquisition of a U.S. Business

Enterprise by, or Who Enters Into a Joint

Venture with, a Foreign Person (Form

BE–14) obtain initial data on new

foreign direct investment in the United

States. The survey collects identification

information on, and limited financial

and operating data for, the U.S. entity

being established or acquired. It also

collects identification information on

the new foreign owner. The data are

needed to measure the amount of new

foreign direct investment in the United

States, monitor changes in such

investment, assess its impact on the U.S.

economy, and, based upon this

assessment, make informed policy

decisions regarding foreign direct

investment in the United States.

This survey is being revised to bring

it into conformity with the proposed

design of the BE–12, Benchmark Survey

of Foreign Direct Investment in the

United States—1997. Beginning with

reports covering 1998 transactions, BEA

plans to raise the exemption level for

reporting to $3 million (measured by the

acquired or established company’s total

assets) from $1 million, thereby

reducing respondent burden for small

companies. A concomitant requirement

that a report be filed for all acquisitions

of 200 or more acres of U.S. land will

not be changed. BEA also proposes to

base industry coding of reporting

companies on the new North American

Industry Classification System (NAICS)

in place of the current system, which is

based on the U.S. Standard Industrial

Classification System. No changes are

being proposed for Form BE–14, except

that the exemption for reporting is

raised to correspond to the new

threshold for Form BE–13.

II. Method of Collection

The BE–13 survey must be filed by

every U.S. business with over $3 million

of assets or 200 or more acres of U.S.

land that is acquired to the extent of 10

percent or more, or is established, by a

foreign investor. It is a one-time report

that must be filed within 45 days of the

acquisition or establishment. An

exemption claim must be filed for

transactions that do not meet the

exemption levels of $3 million of assets

or 200 acres of land. The BE–14 survey

is filed by a person who assists in an

investment transaction, such as a real

estate broker or attorney, or who enters

into a U.S. joint venture with a foreign

person. Its purpose is to provide BEA

with the name and address of the newly

established or acquired U.S. company,

so that a BE–13 form can be mailed to

it for completion.

III. Data

OMB Number: 0608–0035.

Form Number: BE–13/BE–14.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Businesses or other

for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

1,200 annually.

Estimated Time Per Response: 11⁄2

hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden:

1,800 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $54,000

(based on an estimated reporting burden

of 1,800 hours and an estimated hourly

cost of $30).

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 has 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: July 31, 1997.

Linda Engelmeier,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of Management and Organization.

[FR Doc. 97–20756 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 912]

Expansion of Foreign-Trade Subzone

183A Dell Computer Corporation;

Austin, TX

Pursuant to its authority under the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u),

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas, an application from the

Foreign Trade Zone of Central Texas,

Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 183,

for authority to expand Foreign-Trade

Subzone 183A at the Dell Computer

Corporation plant in Austin, Texas, was

filed by the Board on March 27, 1997

(FTZ Docket 24–97, 62 FR 17147, 4/9/

97); and,

Whereas, notice inviting public

comment was given in Federal Register

and the application has been processed

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s

regulations; and,

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices 42487

that the proposal is in the public

interest;

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby

orders:

The application to expand Subzone

183A is approved, subject to the Act and

the Board’s regulations, including

Section 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of

July 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–20736 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–25–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–813]

Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand;

Preliminary Results and Partial

Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial termination of antidumping

duty administrative review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by

respondents Siam Food Products Public

Company Ltd. (SFP), The Thai

Pineapple Public Company, Ltd.

(TIPCO), and Thai Pineapple Canning

Industry Corp., Ltd. (TPC), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on canned

pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand.

The review covers three manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise.

The period of review (POR) is January

11, 1995, through June 30, 1996.

We have preliminarily found that

sales of subject merchandise have been

made below normal value (NV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results, we will instruct U.S.

Customs to assess antidumping duties

equal to the difference between the

export price (EP) or constructed export

price (CEP) and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit case briefs in this

proceeding should provide a summary

of the arguments not to exceed five

pages and a table of statutes,

regulations, and cases cited.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gabriel Adler, at (202) 482–1442, or Kris

Campbell, at (202) 482–3813; Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, Washington, DC. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations refer to the

regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 353,

as they existed on April 1, 1997.

Background

On July 18, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

antidumping duty order on canned

pineapple fruit from Thailand. See 60

FR 36775. On July 8, 1996, the

Department published a notice

providing an opportunity to request an

administrative review of this

antidumping duty order for the period

January 11, 1995, through June 30, 1996.

See 61 FR 35712. On July 31, 1996, we

received timely requests for review from

the following respondents: SFP; TIPCO;

TPC; Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole

Packaged Foods Company, and Dole

Thailand, Ltd. (collectively referred to

hereafter as ‘‘Dole’’); Thai Bonanza

International Corp., Ltd. (Thai Bonanza);

and Vita Food Factory (Vita Food). On

September 5, 1996, we issued an

antidumping questionnaire to the six

companies that had requested a review.

Thai Bonanza and Vita Food

withdrew their requests for review on

September 9, 1996, and Dole withdrew

its request for review on November 7,

1996. Because there were no other

requests for review of these companies

from any other interested parties, and

because the letters withdrawing the

requests for review were timely filed,

we are terminating the review with

respect to these companies in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

On December 12, 1996, Maui

Pineapple, Ltd. (the petitioner) alleged

that SFP and TPC had each sold the

foreign like product at prices below

their respective cost of production

(COP). On January 13, 1997, we initiated

a sales-below-cost investigation with

respect to these two companies. We also

initiated a COP investigation of sales by

TIPCO because we disregarded sales

below the COP in the last completed

segment of the proceeding for this

company. See ‘‘Cost of Production

Analysis’’ below.

On January 29, 1997, we published a

notice of postponement of the

preliminary results. See 62 FR 4250.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

canned pineapple fruit. For purposes of

this review, CPF is 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 customs purposes, our

written description of the scope is

dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified sales and cost

information provided by all three

respondents. We used standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s

facilities and examination of relevant

sales and financial records. Our

verification results are outlined in the

verification reports placed in the case

file.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

For the price to the United States, we

used EP or CEP as defined in sections

772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, as

appropriate.

TPC

In accordance with sections 772 (a)

and (c) of the Act, we calculated an EP

for sales where the merchandise was

sold directly by TPC to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation, and CEP was

not otherwise warranted based on the

facts of record. In accordance with

sections 772 (b), (c) and (d) of the Act,

we calculated a CEP for sales that took

place after importation into the United

States and for which U.S. sales

activities, including the setting of

prices, took place in the United States

through affiliated U.S. resellers. EP and

CEP were based on the packed FOB,

CIF, or delivered price to unaffiliated