18518 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 

III. Method of Collection 

A survey with a cover letter that 

includes a brief description of, and 

rationale for, the survey will be sent by 

e-mail to potential respondents by the 

first week of June of each year. A report 

of the respondent’s expenditures of the 

NIH award amounts, following the 

proposed format for expenditure 

categories included with the survey 

form, will be requested to be completed 

and submitted online no later than 120 

days after mailing. Survey respondents 

will be selected on the basis of award 

levels, which determine the weight of 

the respondent in the biomedical 

research and development price index. 

Potential respondents will include (1) 

The top 100 organizations in total 

awards, which account for about 59 

percent of total awards; (2) 40 additional 

organizations that are not primarily in 

the ‘‘Research and Development (R&D) 

contracts’’ category; and (3) 10 

additional organizations that are 

primarily in the ‘‘R&D contracts’’ 

category. 

IV. Data 

OMB Number: 0608–0069. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Universities or other 

organizations that are NIH award 

recipients. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

90. 

Estimated Time per Response: 11 

hours and 12 minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

1,008 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. 

V. 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 NIH, 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: March 29, 2011. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7804 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–EA–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–822] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Mexico: Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

an interested party, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated 

an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order covering 

stainless steel sheet and strip in coils 

from Mexico. The period of review is 

July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. 

Based on the withdrawal of request for 

review submitted by Allegheny Ludlum 

Corporation, North American Stainless, 

and AK Steel Corporation (collectively 

‘‘petitioners’’), we are now rescinding 

this administrative review. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga 

Carter, John Drury or Angelica 

Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–8221, 

(202) 482–0195 or (202) 482–3019 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2010, the Department 

published a notice announcing an 

opportunity for interested parties to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel sheet and strip in coils from 

Mexico. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 75 

FR 38074 (July 1, 2010). On July 30, 

2010, petitioners filed a request that the 

Department initiate an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils 

from Mexico with respect to 

ThyssenKrupp Mexinox, S.A. de C.V. 

(‘‘Mexinox’’). Based on petitioners’ 

request, on August 31, 2010, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel sheet and strip in coils from 

Mexico. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Deferral of Initiation of 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 53274 

(August 31, 2010). 

Rescission of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1), the Department will 

rescind an administrative review, ‘‘in 

whole or in part, if a party that 

requested a review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of notice of initiation of the 

requested review. The Secretary may 

extend this time limit if the Secretary 

decides that it is reasonable to do so.’’ 

On March 21, 2011, petitioners 

withdrew their request for a review of 

the order with respect to Mexinox. 

Although the party submitted a letter 

withdrawing their review request after 

the 90-day regulatory deadline, the 

Department finds it is reasonable to 

extend the deadline for withdrawing the 

review request because it has not yet 

devoted significant time or resources to 

the review. 

Because of the withdrawal of the 

request for review and because we 

received no other requests for review, 

we are rescinding the administrative 

review of the order with respect to 

Mexinox. This rescission is in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 

Assessment 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. For Mexinox, the 

antidumping duties shall be assessed at 

rates equal to the cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties required 

at the time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after 

publication of this notice. 

Notifications 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 18519 

1See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 

Strip From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 9745 (February 

22, 2011) (Final Results) and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum (IDM). 

2See Nan Ya’s Letter to the Secretary of 

Commerce dated March 8, 2011 (Allegation of 

Ministerial Errors). 

3See Petitioners’ Letter to the Secretary of 

Commerce dated March 14, 2011. 

4See also 19 CFR 351.224(f). 

5See Allegation of Ministerial Errors at 1–3. 

6See Petitioners’ Rebuttal Comments at 1–3. 

7See the Department’s Letter to Nan Ya dated 

May 27, 2010 at 1. 

8See, e.g., Letters to the Secretary of Commerce 

regarding the section C questionnaire responses of 

Forplax LLC and Forplax Los Angeles, Inc. dated 

July 7, 2010 at C–2, and Letter to the Secretary of 

Commerce regarding the section C questionnaire 

response of Rocheux International dated July 9, 

2010 at C–1. 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.305(a)(3). Timely written 

notification of the 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 notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: March 28, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7793 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–837] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: 

Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On February 22, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the final results 

of the antidumping duty administrative 

review of polyethylene terephthalate 

film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from 

Taiwan.1 The period of review (POR) is 

July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. We 

are amending the Final Results to 

correct a ministerial error that was made 

in the calculation of the antidumping 

duty margin for Nan Ya Plastics 

Corporation, Ltd. (Nan Ya), pursuant to 

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

as amended (the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: (February 22, 

2011) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3586. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 8, 2011, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.224(c)(1), Nan Ya filed a timely 

submission alleging ministerial errors 

with respect to the Department’s use of 

sales datasets and matching of 

CONNUMs in the antidumping duty 

margin calculation for Nan Ya in the 

Final Results.2 On March 14, 2011, 

DuPont Teijin Films; Mitsubishi 

Polyester Film Inc.; SKC, Inc.; and 

Toray Plastics (America), Inc. 

(collectively, Petitioners) provided 

timely rebuttal comments to Nan Ya’s 

model matching allegation.3

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the 

antidumping order are all gauges of raw, 

pretreated, or primed polyethylene 

terephthalate film, whether extruded or 

coextruded. Excluded are metallized 

films and other finished films that have 

had at least one of their surfaces 

modified by the application of a 

performance-enhancing resinous or 

inorganic layer more than 0.00001 

inches thick. Imports of PET Film are 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item number 

3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written description of the 

scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 

Ministerial Error Allegation 

A ministerial error is defined in 

section 751(h) of the Act as ‘‘* * * 

errors in addition, subtraction, or other 

arithmetic function, clerical errors 

resulting from inaccurate copying, 

duplication, or the like, and any other 

type of unintentional error which the 

administering authority considers 

ministerial.’’ 4 In its Allegation of 

Ministerial Errors, Nan Ya alleged that: 

(1) The Department inadvertently used 

the incorrect U.S. and home market 

sales datasets to calculate Nan Ya’s 

antidumping duty margin for the final 

results; and (2) the Department 

erroneously matched similar home 

market subject merchandise to U.S. 

sales where there was no identical sale 

during the comparison period.5

Specifically, Nan Ya argues that the last 

criteria in the Department’s model 

matching hierarchy, surface treatment, 

has a greater impact on the sales price 

and the production costs of PET Film 

compared to the other criteria in the 

hierarchy, and that it should receive 

more weight during the model matching 

process. Petitioners commented only on 

Nan Ya’s model matching allegation, 

contending that the Department did not 

commit a ministerial error. According to 

Petitioners, the Department acted in 

accordance with its well established 

methodology with respect to model 

matching.6

Analysis of Allegations 

After analyzing the interested parties’ 

allegations and rebuttal comments, we 

find, in accordance with section 751(h) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that 

with respect to Nan Ya’s first allegation, 

the Department did, indeed, 

inadvertently use the incorrect sales 

datasets to calculate Nan Ya’s 

antidumping duty margin for the Final 

Results. In its May 27, 2010 

supplemental questionnaire to Nan Ya, 

the Department requested that Nan Ya 

and its three U.S. affiliates provide a 

single, consolidated constructed export 

price (CEP) sales dataset to report their 

sales in the U.S. market.7 However, the 

three U.S. affiliates stated that they are 

not affiliated with Nan Ya, and each 

submitted an individual CEP sales 

dataset.8 Subsequently, the Department 

requested that Nan Ya and its three U.S. 

affiliates provide several revised sales 

datasets for home market, export price 

(EP) and CEP sales. While the correct 

datasets were used for the CEP sales for 

the Final Results, we erroneously used 

an older version of the home market and 

U.S. EP sales datasets submitted by Nan 

Ya. Thus, the Department has 

determined that the use of the wrong 

datasets constitutes a ministerial error, 

in accordance with section 751(h) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e). For these 

amended final results, we recalculated 

Nan Ya’s antidumping duty margin 

using the correct sales datasets. 

Regarding Nan Ya’s second allegation 

with respect to model matching, the 

Department disagrees that it made a 

ministerial error as defined by section 

751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e). 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES