7562 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2010 / Notices 

Data collection activity Respondents 

Annual 

frequency per 

response 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

burden per 

respondent 

(minutes) 

Total burden 

estimate 

(hours) 

Total ........................................... ........................................................... ........................ 15,100 ........................ 5,200 

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

the use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

All comments received will be available 

for public inspection during regular 

business hours at the same address. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for the Office of Management and 

Budget approval. All comments will 

become a matter of public record. 

Dated: February 8, 2010. 

Joe Leonard, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, United 

States Department of Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3359 Filed 2–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–489–807] 

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 

Bars From Turkey: Notice of Court 

Decision Not in Harmony With Final 

Results of Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 19, 2010, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of 

Commerce’s (the Department’s) results 

of redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s 

remand order in Nucor Corporation, 

Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and 

Commercial Metals Company v. United 

States and Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve 

Ulasim Sanayi A.S., Court No. 05– 

00616, Slip Op. 10–6 (Jan. 19, 2010). See 

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 

Remand, dated November 6, 2009 

(found at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands). 

Consistent with the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. 

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 

1990) (Timken), the Department is 

notifying the public that the final 

judgment in this case is not in harmony 

with the Department’s final results of 

the administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain steel 

concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from 

Turkey covering the period of review 

(POR) of April 1, 2003, through March 

31, 2004. See Certain Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final 

Results, Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review in Part, and 

Determination To Revoke in Part, 70 FR 

67665 (Nov. 8, 2005) (Final Results). 

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 

On November 8, 2005, the Department 

published the final results of the 

administrative review. See Final 

Results. In the final results, the 

Department: (1) Reversed its 

preliminary decision with respect to the 

U.S. date of sale for ICDAS and used the 

contract date as the date of sale for 

ICDAS’s U.S. sales, rather than the 

invoice date, because it determined that 

the material terms of sale were 

established at the contract date; (2) 

computed ICDAS’s cost of production 

(COP) using annual-average, rather than 

quarterly, costs; and (3) defined the 

universe of U.S. sales transactions 

examined during the administrative 

review to rely on the date that subject 

merchandise entered the customs 

territory of the United States, rather 

than the date that subject merchandise 

was sold here. 

On November 18, 2005, the 

Department requested a voluntary 

remand in order to reconsider the dateof-sale issue. On December 15, 2005, the 

CIT granted the Department’s request to 

reconsider whether, based upon the 

record evidence, the Department 

reasonably applied its date-of-sale 

methodology to the facts at issue. 

On January 31, 2006, the Department 

issued its final results of 

redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s 

December 15, 2005, ruling. In its 

remand results, the Department 

determined that the invoice date is the 

appropriate date of sale for ICDAS’s U.S. 

sales in the 2003–2004 administrative 

review. 

On March 24, 2009, the CIT again 

remanded this issue to the Department, 

requiring that the Department provide a 

more in-depth analysis as to why the 

use of invoice date as U.S. date of sale 

was appropriate. In addition, the CIT 

remanded two additional issues, at the 

Department’s request, related to the 

calculation of ICDAS’s COP and an 

explanation for the methodology used to 

determine the universe of U.S. sales 

examined in the review. 

On November 6, 2009, the Department 

issued its final results of 

redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s 

March 24, 2009, ruling. In its remand 

redetermination the Department 

explained that, in accordance with the 

CIT’s instructions, it reconsidered the 

issues contained in the CIT’s March 24, 

2009, ruling and determined that it was 

appropriate to: (1) Base ICDAS’s 

universe of sales on entry date; (2) use 

invoice date as the date of sale for 

ICDAS’s U.S. sales; and (3) use ICDAS’s 

quarterly-average costs in its margin 

calculations. On January 19, 2010, the 

CIT affirmed the Department’s 

November 6, 2009, remand 

redetermination. 

The Department’s redetermination 

resulted in changes to the Final Results 

weighted-average margin for ICDAS 

from 0.16 percent to 0.70 percent. 

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 

341, the CAFC held that, pursuant to 

section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), the 

Department must publish a notice of a 

court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ 

with a Department determination and 

must suspend liquidation of entries 

pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. 

The CIT’s decision on January 19, 

2010, constitutes a final decision of that 

Court that is not in harmony with the 

Department’s Final Results. 

Accordingly, this notice is published in 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2010 / Notices 7563 

1On September 29, 2008, the Department 

received a timely request for an administrative 

review filed on behalf of Kejriwal Paper Limited 

(Kejriwal) and a timely request for an 

administrative review filed on behalf of Navneet 

Publications (India) Ltd., (Navneet). On September 

30, 2008, the Department received a timely request 

for an administrative review of the following 25 

companies, filed on behalf of the Association of 

American School Paper Suppliers (Petitioner), a 

domestic interested party: Agility Logistics Pvt. 

Ltd., Blue Bird (India) Limited (Blue Bird), Ceal 

Shipping Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Cello International Pvt. 

Ltd., Corporate Stationary Pvt. Ltd., Creative Divya, 

Exel India Pvt. Ltd., FFI International, Global Art 

India Inc., International Greetings Pvt. Ltd., Karim 

General Handmade Paper DIAR, Kejriwal Exports, 

M/S Super ImpEx., Magic International, Marigold 

ExIm Pvt. Ltd., Marisa International, Navneet, 

Pentagon Waterlines Pvt. Ltd., Pioneer Stationery 

Pvt. Ltd., Rajvansh International, Riddhi 

Enterprises, SAB International, TKS Overseas, 

Unlimited Accessories Worldwide, and V. Joshi Co. 

fulfillment of the publication 

requirements of Timken, with an 

effective date of January 29, 2010, (i.e., 

10 days following the CIT’s ruling). The 

Department will continue the 

suspension of liquidation of the subject 

merchandise pending the expiration of 

the period of appeal or, if appealed, 

pending a final and conclusive court 

decision. In the event the CIT’s ruling is 

not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by 

the CAFC, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 

assess antidumping duties on entries of 

the subject merchandise during the POR 

from ICDAS based on the revised 

assessment rates calculated by the 

Department. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: February 12, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3266 Filed 2–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–843] 

Certain Lined Paper Products from 

India: Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 7, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

for certain lined paper products from 

India (CLPP). See Certain Lined Paper 

Products From India: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

51558 (October 7, 2009) (Preliminary 

Results). This review covers 25 

manufacturers and exporters of the 

subject merchandise.1 As a result of our 

analysis of the comments received, 

these final results differ from the 

Preliminary Results. 

For our final results, we continue to 

find that Navneet and Blue Bird made 

sales of subject merchandise at less than 

normal value (NV). In addition, based 

on the final results for Navneet, we have 

determined a weighted–average margin 

for those companies that were not 

selected for individual review. 

DATES: Effective Date: 

February 22, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Moore (Navneet, and non– 

selected companies) and Cindy 

Robinson (Blue Bird), 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, (202) 482– 

3797, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 25, 2008, the 

Department selected Kejriwal and Blue 

Bird as companies to be individually 

examined in this second administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on CLPP from India. See Memorandum 

to Melissa Skinner from George 

McMahon titled ‘‘Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India: Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Review’’ 

(Respondent Selection Memo), dated 

November 25, 2008. On December 22, 

2008, both Kejriwal and petitioner 

timely withdrew their requests for a 

review of Kejriwal. On January 9, 2009, 

after we determined that we would 

rescind the review with respect to 

Kejriwal, we selected Navneet as a 

mandatory respondent. 

On October 7, 2009, the Department 

published the Preliminary Results. As 

noted in the Preliminary Results, Blue 

Bird withheld requested information, 

significantly impeded the proceeding, 

and failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability. Therefore, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 776(b) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

the Department preliminarily 

determined that the use of facts 

available for Blue Bird was appropriate, 

and assigned a rate of 72.96 percent, 

which was based on the highest margin 

preliminarily calculated for Navneet in 

this review. 

Comments from Interested Parties 

We invited parties to comment on our 

Preliminary Results. Case briefs were 

filed November 20, 2009, by Navneet, 

and Blue Bird; November 24, 2009, by 

petitioner; and on November 25, 2009, 

by IScholar, Inc., an importer of subject 

merchandise from respondent Blue 

Bird. On December 4, 2009, petitioner 

and Navneet filed rebuttal briefs. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain lined paper products, typically 

school supplies (for purposes of this 

scope definition, the actual use of or 

labeling these products as school 

supplies or non–school supplies is not 

a defining characteristic) composed of 

or including paper that incorporates 

straight horizontal and/or vertical lines 

on ten or more paper sheets (there shall 

be no minimum page requirement for 

loose leaf filler paper) including but not 

limited to such products as single- and 

multi–subject notebooks, composition 

books, wireless notebooks, loose leaf or 

glued filler paper, graph paper, and 

laboratory notebooks, and with the 

smaller dimension of the paper 

measuring 6 inches to 15 inches 

(inclusive) and the larger dimension of 

the paper measuring 8–3/4 inches to 15 

inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are 

measured size (not advertised, stated, or 

‘‘tear–out’’ size), and are measured as 

they appear in the product (i.e., stitched 

and folded pages in a notebook are 

measured by the size of the page as it 

appears in the notebook page, not the 

size of the unfolded paper). However, 

for measurement purposes, pages with 

tapered or rounded edges shall be 

measured at their longest and widest 

points. Subject lined paper products 

may be loose, packaged or bound using 

any binding method (other than case 

bound through the inclusion of binders 

board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). 

Subject merchandise may or may not 

contain any combination of a front 

cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of 

any composition, regardless of the 

inclusion of images or graphics on the 

cover, backing, or paper. Subject 

merchandise is within the scope of this 

order whether or not the lined paper 

and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, 

perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject 

merchandise may contain accessory or 

informational items including but not 

limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, 

closure devices, index cards, stencils, 

protractors, writing implements, 

reference materials such as 

mathematical tables, or printed items 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES