Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1031 

1An SME is defined as a firm with 500 or fewer 

employees or that otherwise qualifies as a small 

business under SBA regulations (see http:// 

www.sba.gov/services/contracting_opportunities/ 

sizestandardstopics/index.html). Parent companies, 

affiliates, and subsidiaries will be considered when 

determining business size. The dual pricing 

schedule reflects the Commercial Service’s user fee 

schedule that became effective May 1, 2008 (for 

additional information see http://www.export.gov/ 

newsletter/march2008/initiatives.html). 

2Minimum booth space is 9 square meters. 

Companies can take larger space for which cost will 

be calculated accordingly. 

1The petitioners are the United States Steel 

Corporation Steel, Nucor Corporation, and 

ArcelorMittal USA Inc. (collectively ‘‘petitioners’’). 

Breakfast briefing by the U.S. Commercial Service at hotel. 

One-on-one business appointments or exhibition at Medical Fair India. 

Evening: Networking reception. 

Saturday, March 13 ............ Mumbai 

Hospital chain visit and meeting with senior management. 

Or Medical Fair India 2010. 

Evening: Check-out of the hotel or remain in Mumbai for Medical Fair India. 

Depart for Mumbai International airport for onward travel. 

Participation Requirements 

All parties interested in participating 

in the Medical Trade Mission to India 

must complete and submit an 

application for consideration by the 

Department of Commerce. All 

applicants will be evaluated on their 

ability to meet certain conditions and 

best satisfy the selection criteria as 

outlined below. The mission is open on 

a first come first served basis to 15 

qualified U.S. companies. Additional 

applications will be considered as time 

and space permits. 

Fees and Expenses 

After a company has been selected to 

participate on the mission, a payment to 

the Department of Commerce in the 

form of a participation fee is required. 

The participation fees reflect two 

options: 

Option 1: March 8–13, 2010. 

Participation in the Trade Mission in all 

three cities: New Delhi, Chennai, and 

Mumbai. The participation fee will be 

$4,600 for large firms and $3,900 for a 

small or medium-sized enterprise 

(SME) 1, this includes one principal 

representative. The fee for each 

additional firm representative (large 

firm or SME) is $500. 

Option 2: March 8–11, 2010 

participate in the Trade Mission in two 

cities: New Delhi and Chennai and 

March 12–14, exhibit at the Medical 

Fair India 2010 in Mumbai. The 

participation fee for New Delhi-Chennai 

and exhibiting in the Fair in Mumbai 

$6,800 ($3,600 Trade Mission fee + 

$3,200 for 9 square meter booth space 2) 

for large firms and $ 6,100 ($2,900 Trade 

Mission fee + $3,200 for 9 square meter 

booth space) for an SME, which 

includes one principal representative. 

The fee for each additional firm 

representative (large firm or SME) is 

$250. 

Expenses for lodging, some meals, 

incidentals, and travel (except for 

transportation to and from meetings) 

will be the responsibility of each 

mission participant. 

Conditions for Participation 

• An applicant must submit a 

completed and signed mission 

application and supplemental 

application materials, including 

adequate information on the company’s 

products and/or services, primary 

market objectives, and goals for 

participation. 

• Each applicant must also certify 

that the products and services it seeks 

to export through the mission are either 

produced in the United States, or, if not, 

marketed under the name of a U.S. firm 

and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. 

content. 

Selection Criteria for Participation 

Selection will be based on the 

following criteria: 

• Suitability of a company’s products 

or services to the mission’s goals. 

• Applicant’s potential for business 

in India, including likelihood of exports 

resulting from the trade mission. 

• Consistency of the applicant’s goals 

and objectives with the stated scope of 

the trade mission. 

Any partisan political activities 

(including political contributions) of an 

applicant are entirely irrelevant to the 

selection process. 

Timeframe for Recruitment and 

Applications 

Mission recruitment will be 

conducted in an open and public 

manner, including posting in the 

Federal Register, the Commerce 

Department trade mission calendar 

(http://www.ita.doc.gov/doctm/ 

tmcal.html), and other Internet Web 

sites; press releases to general and trade 

media; direct mail; notices by industry 

trade associations and other multiplier 

groups; and publicity at industry 

meetings, symposia, conferences, and 

trade shows. Recruitment for the 

mission will begin immediately and 

conclude no later than January 31, 2010. 

Contacts 

U.S. Commercial Service Healthcare 

Team: Ms. Jetta DeNend, International 

Trade Specialist, U.S. Commercial 

Service, 33 Whitehall St. 22nd Floor, 

New York, NY 10004, Ph: 212–809– 

2644/Fax: 212–809–268, E-mail: 

Jetta.DeNend@mail.doc.gov. 

U.S. Commercial Service in India: Mr. 

Srimoti Mukherji, U.S. Commercial 

Service, New Delhi, Ph: 91–11– 

23472000, ext 2226, Fax: 91–11–2331 

5172, Srimoti.Mukherji@mail.doc.gov. 

Lisa Huot, 

Global Trade Programs, Commercial Service 

Trade Missions Program. 

[FR Doc. 2010–108 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–533–820) 

Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from India: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, and Intent 

to Rescind in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

petitioners,1 the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping order on certain hot– 

rolled carbon steel flat products from 

India (‘‘Indian Hot–Rolled’’) 

manufactured by Essar Steel Limited 

(‘‘Essar’’), Ispat Industries Limited 

(‘‘Ispat’’), JSW Steel Limited (‘‘JSW’’), and 

Tata Steel Limited (‘‘Tata’’). The period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) covers December 1, 

2007, through November 30, 2008. We 

preliminarily determine to calculate an 

antidumping duty margin based upon 

the application of adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’) with respect to Essar’s sales. 

We also preliminarily determine that 

Ispat, JSW and Tata had no entries of 

subject merchandise subject to review 

under this antidumping order during 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
1032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 

2See Memorandum to File, Re: ‘‘Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India,’’ 

Subject: ‘‘Customs and Border Protection Data for 

Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,’’ 

from Dennis McClure, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, through James Terpstra, 

Program Manager, and Melissa Skinner, Office 

Director, Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, dated 

February 19, 2009 (‘‘Hot-Rolled Memo’’). 

the POR. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We intend to issue the final results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy 

Zhang or James Terpstra, 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) 482–1168 and (202) 

482–3965, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 3, 2001, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on Indian Hot– 

Rolled. See Notice of Amended Final 

Antidumping Duty Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot– 

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001) 

(‘‘Amended Final Determination’’). On 

December 1, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice titled ‘‘Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review’’ of the 

antidumping duty order on Indian Hot– 

Rolled. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 72764 (December 1, 2008). On 

December 31, 2008, petitioners 

requested an administrative review in 

the antidumping duty order on Indian 

Hot–Rolled, for subject merchandise 

produced or exported by Ispat, JSW, 

Tata, and Essar. On February 2, 2009, 

the Department published a notice of 

initiation of antidumping duty 

administrative review of Indian Hot– 

Rolled for the period December 1, 2007, 

through November 30, 2008. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 74 FR 5821 (February 2, 2009) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On February 6, 

2009, Ispat, Essar, and JSW each 

informed the Department that they did 

not have shipments of the subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. On February 19, 2009, the 

Department released to the parties U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

data showing a single entry of subject 

merchandise into the United States.2 On 

February 25, 2009, Tata informed the 

Department that it made no shipments 

of subject merchandise that were 

entered into the United States during 

the POR, and that the entry shown in 

the CBP data was not produced by Tata, 

but was in fact produced and sold by 

another Indian manufacturer. On March 

4, 2009, Essar filed a response to the 

CBP data and Tata’s February 25, 2009, 

submission, stating that Essar made a 

sale during the POR, but Essar believed 

that this was a domestic sale, rather 

than a sale to the United States. On 

March 17, 2009, the Department issued 

an antidumping questionnaire to Tata. 

On March 19, 2009, Tata submitted its 

response to the Department and 

included as an attachment several e– 

mails regarding the sale in question to 

demonstrate that Essar was the exporter 

of the single shipment. Tata argued that 

Essar had actual knowledge at the time 

that it made the sale in India to Tata 

Steel’s affiliate, Tata Ryerson, that the 

merchandise was to be exported to the 

United States. Therefore, Tata argued 

that Essar is the appropriate exporter for 

this shipment, and that the Department 

should rescind the instant review of 

Tata. See Tata’s March 19, 2009, 

submission at 2. In its April 3, 2009, 

submission, Essar reiterated that 

because it treated the subject sale as a 

domestic sale, it had no shipments to 

the United States during the POR and it 

should not be a respondent in this 

proceeding. See Essar’s April 3, 2009, 

submission at 5. 

On May 8, 2009, the Department sent 

a letter to Essar, stating that, after review 

of record information from CBP, and the 

submissions of both Essar and Tata, the 

Department determined that Essar had 

knowledge that the merchandise it sold 

was destined for the United States 

before the terms of sale were finalized. 

Because the Department considered the 

shipment of subject merchandise to be 

made by Essar, it notified Essar that it 

would be required to respond to the 

Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire. See Letter from James 

Terpstra, Program Manager, AD/CVD, 

Office 3, Import Administration to 

Essar, dated May 8, 2009. 

Contrary to the Department’s 

instructions, Essar did not respond to 

the Department’s questionnaire. Instead, 

by letter dated June 15, 2009, Essar 

informed the Department that it would 

not be able to actively participate in this 

administrative review, except with 

respect to briefing and any hearing that 

might be requested. Essar reiterated its 

position that it was not the appropriate 

respondent and requested that the 

Department rescind this review with 

respect to Essar. 

On September 10, 2009, the 

Department extended the time period 

for issuing the preliminary results of the 

administrative review from September 

2, 2009, to December 31, 2009. See 

Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from India: Notice of 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

46569 (September 2, 2009). 

Period of Review 

The POR covered by this review is 

December 1, 2007, through November 

30, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat 

products of a rectangular shape, of a 

width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal and 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other non– 

metallic substances, in coils (whether or 

not in successively superimposed 

layers), regardless of thickness, and in 

straight lengths, of a thickness of less 

than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring 

at least 10 times the thickness. 

Universal mill plate (i.e., flat–rolled 

products rolled on four faces or in a 

closed box pass, of a width exceeding 

150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, 

and of a thickness of not less than 4 

mm, not in coils and without patterns 

in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 

mm is not included within the scope of 

this order. 

Specifically included in the scope of 

this order are vacuum–degassed, fully 

stabilized (commonly referred to as 

interstitial–free (‘‘IF’’)) steels, high– 

strength low–alloy (‘‘HSLA’’) steels, and 

the substrate for motor lamination 

steels. IF steels are recognized as low– 

carbon steels with micro–alloying levels 

of elements such as titanium or niobium 

(also commonly referred to as 

columbium), or both, added to stabilize 

carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA 

steels are recognized as steels with 

micro–alloying levels of elements such 

as chromium, copper, niobium, 

vanadium, and molybdenum. The 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1033 

substrate for motor lamination steels 

contains micro–alloying levels of 

elements such as silicon and aluminum. 

Steel products included in the scope 

of this order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products 

in which: i) iron predominates, by 

weight, over each of the other contained 

elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 

percent or less, by weight; and iii) none 

of the elements listed below exceeds the 

quantity, by weight, respectively 

indicated: 

1.80 percent of manganese, or 

2.25 percent of silicon, or 

1.00 percent of copper, or 

0.50 percent of aluminum, or 

1.25 percent of chromium, or 

0.30 percent of cobalt, or 

0.40 percent of lead, or 

1.25 percent of nickel, or 

0.30 percent of tungsten, or 

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 

0.10 percent of niobium, or 

0.15 percent of vanadium, or 

0.15 percent of zirconium. 

All products that meet the physical 

and chemical description provided 

above are within the scope of this order 

unless otherwise excluded. The 

following products, by way of example, 

are outside or specifically excluded 

from the scope of this order: 

• Alloy hot–rolled carbon steel 

products in which at least one of 

the chemical elements exceeds 

those listed above (including, e.g., 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) specifications 

A543, A387, A514, A517, A506)). 

• Society of Automotive Engineers 

(‘‘SAE’’)/American Iron & Steel 

Institute (‘‘AISI’’) grades of series 

2300 and higher. 

• Ball bearings steels, as defined in 

the HTSUS. 

• Tool steels, as defined in the 

HTSUS. 

• Silico–manganese (as defined in the 

HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel 

with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 

percent. 

• ASTM specifications A710 and 

A736. 

• United States Steel (‘‘USS’’) 

Abrasion–resistant steels (USS AR 

400, USS AR 500). 

• All products (proprietary or 

otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM 

specification (sample specifications: 

ASTM A506, A507). 

• Non–rectangular shapes, not in 

coils, which are the result of having 

been processed by cutting or 

stamping and which have assumed 

the character of articles or products 

classified outside chapter 72 of the 

HTSUS. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at 

subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 

7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 

7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 

7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 

7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 

7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 

7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 

7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 

7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 

7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 

7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 

7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 

7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 

7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 

7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 

7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 

7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. 

Certain hot–rolled carbon steel covered 

by this order, including: vacuum– 

degassed fully stabilized; high–strength 

low–alloy; and the substrate for motor 

lamination steel may also enter under 

the following tariff numbers: 

7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 

7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 

7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 

7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 

7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 

7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 

7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 

7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise 

may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 

7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 

7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 

7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise subject to this order is 

dispositive. 

Intent to Rescind and Preliminary 

Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review with Respect to Ispat, JSW, and 

Tata 

Ispat and JSW have each submitted 

timely–filed certifications indicating 

that they had no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. See Hot–Rolled Memo. The 

Department confirmed Ispat and JSW’s 

assertions with the CBP data. With 

respect to the one entry of subject 

merchandise into the United States 

during the POR, the Department 

determined that the entry was produced 

and sold by Essar because Essar had 

knowledge that merchandise it was 

selling was destined for the United 

States before the terms of sale were 

finalized. In making this determination, 

the Department concluded, based upon 

record evidence that the sale was not 

made by Tata. As a result, we 

preliminarily find that, during the POR, 

Ispat, JSW, and Tata did not have 

entries of subject merchandise into the 

United States subject to this 

antidumping review. Therefore, 

pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(3), and 

consistent with our practice, we 

preliminarily determine to rescind this 

review with respect to Ispat, JSW and 

Tata. We invite comments from 

interested parties on this intent to 

rescind. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides 

that, the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary 

information is not on the record, or (2) 

an interested party or any other person 

(A) withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding, or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits and subject to section 782(e) 

of the Act, the Department may 

disregard all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 

and if the interested party acted to the 

best of its ability in providing the 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information 

supplied if it can do so without undue 

difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Such an adverse 

inference may include reliance on 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination, a previous 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
1034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

‘‘{i}nformation derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’ 

See Statement of Administrative Action, 

reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103–216, at 

870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). Corroborate means 

that the Department will satisfy itself 

that the secondary information to be 

used has probative value. Id. To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information to be used. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

On May 8, 2009, the Department sent 

a letter to Essar, stating that record 

evidence indicated that Essar had 

knowledge that the merchandise it sold 

to Tata Ryerson was destined for the 

United States before the terms of sale 

were finalized. Accordingly, the 

Department required Essar to respond to 

the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire in accordance with the 

Department’s practice. Under section 

772(a) of the Act, the basis for export 

price is the price at which the first party 

in the chain of distribution who has 

knowledge of the U.S. destination of the 

merchandise sells the subject 

merchandise, either directly to a U.S. 

purchaser or to an intermediary such as 

a trading company. The party making 

such a sale, with knowledge of the 

destination, is the appropriate party to 

be reviewed. The Department’s test for 

determining knowledge is whether the 

relevant party knew or should have 

known that the merchandise was for 

export to the United States. See SAA. 

The record evidence in this review 

shows that Essar learned of the U.S. 

destination of the merchandise on the 

same day that it offered an initial sales 

quote for coiled steel to Tata Ryerson, 

and that Essar knew that Tata Ryerson 

would slit the coil and ship it the 

United States. Therefore, the 

Department determined that Essar sold 

the subject merchandise to Tata Ryerson 

and at the time of the sale, had 

knowledge or should have known its 

merchandise was ultimately destined 

for the United States. 

Instead of responding to the 

Department’s questionnaire, Essar stated 

that it would not respond. Specifically, 

Essar stated that ‘‘it will not be able to 

actively participate in this 

administrative review, except with 

respect to briefing and any hearing in 

this review.’’ See Essar’s June 15, 2009, 

letter to the Department at 2. Therefore, 

the Department preliminarily 

determines that necessary information is 

not available on the record to serve as 

the basis for the calculation of Essar’s 

margin. See section 776(a)(1) of the Act. 

We also determine that Essar withheld 

requested information and, as a result, 

has significantly impeded this 

proceeding. See section 776(a)(2)(A) and 

(C) of the Act; see Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India: Notice of Final 

Results of the First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 17149 

(April 14, 2009), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice 

From Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (January 13, 

2006), and the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 18; 

and Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales of Less Than Fair Value and Final 

Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon 

and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (August 

30, 2002) (‘‘Wire Rod from Brazil’’). 

Because Essar did not submit the 

questionnaire response requested by the 

Department, and notified the 

Department that it would not participate 

in this administrative review, there is no 

information provided by Essar that 

would enable the Department to 

calculate a margin for Essar. Thus, 

section 782(d) of the Act does not apply 

in this case. 

According to section 776(b) of the 

Act, if the Department finds that an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information, the 

Department may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from the facts otherwise 

available. See Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 

70 FR 54023, 54025–26 (September 13, 

2005); and Wire Rod from Brazil 67 FR 

55792, 55794–96 (August 30, 2002). 

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to 

ensure that the party does not obtain a 

more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See SAA at 870. Furthermore, 

‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the 

part of a respondent is not required 

before the Department may make an 

adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 

1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. 

United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382–83 

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (‘‘Nippon’’). In this case, 

the Department finds that Essar did not 

act to the best of its ability in this 

proceeding, within the meaning of 

section 776(b) of the Act, because it 

could have responded to the 

Department’s requests for information, 

but decided not to do so. In fact, Essar 

made no attempt to provide the 

Department with any information after 

it was informed by the Department that 

it would be a mandatory respondent in 

this review. Therefore, an adverse 

inference is warranted in selecting from 

the facts otherwise available with 

respect to Essar. See Nippon, 337 F.3d 

at 1382–83. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use as AFA, 

information derived from: 1) the 

petition; 2) the final determination in 

the investigation; 3) any previous 

review; or 4) any other information 

placed on the record. The Department’s 

practice, when selecting an AFA rate 

from among the possible sources of 

information, has been to ensure that the 

margin is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to 

effectuate the statutory purposes of the 

adverse facts available rule to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See, e.g., Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 

Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 

(November 7, 2006). 

In order to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse so as to induce 

future cooperation, the Department 

preliminarily determines to assign Essar 

an AFA rate of 28.25 percent. This rate 

is Essar’s cash deposit rate from the 

investigation and represents the highest 

calculated margin from the investigation 

in this case as adjusted to account for 

countervailing duties imposed to offset 

export subsidies. The Department 

determines that the selected margin will 

prevent Essar from benefitting from its 

failure to cooperate with the 

Department’s requests for information. 

See Notice of Amended Final 

Antidumping Duty Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot– 

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001). 

Additionally, we find that this rate is 

reasonably high enough to encourage 

participation in future segments of the 

proceeding. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1035 

3This rate is adjusted to 28.25 percent to account 

for the export subsidy rate found in the 

countervailing duty investigation. 

Corroboration of Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the 

Department to corroborate, to the extent 

practicable, secondary information used 

as facts available. Secondary 

information is defined as information 

derived from the petition that gave rise 

to the investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning the subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 

351.308(c) and (d); see also the SAA at 

870. The SAA clarifies that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See the SAA at 870. 

The SAA also states that independent 

sources used to corroborate such 

evidence may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. Id. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used. Id. 

Unlike other types of information 

such as input costs or selling expenses, 

there are no independent sources for 

calculated dumping margins. The only 

source for an antidumping margin is the 

investigation and prior administrative 

determinations. If the Department 

chooses as facts available a calculated 

dumping margin from the investigation 

or a prior segment of the proceeding, it 

is not necessary to question the 

reliability of the margin. See Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 from India: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

52012 (September 8, 2008) (‘‘Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 from India’’); see also 

Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof 

from France, et al.: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent 

to Rescind Administrative Reviews, and 

Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part, 

69 FR 5949, 5953 (February 9, 2004), 

unchanged in Antifriction Bearings and 

Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Rescission of 

Administrative Reviews in Part, and 

Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 

69 FR 55574, 55576–77 (September 15, 

2004). 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, however, the 

Department will consider information 

reasonably at its disposal to determine 

whether a margin continues to have 

relevance. Where circumstances 

indicate that the selected margin is not 

appropriate as AFA, the Department 

will disregard the margin and determine 

an appropriate margin. For example, in 

Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (February 22, 1996), the 

Department disregarded the highest 

margin in that case as adverse best 

information available (the predecessor 

to facts available) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense 

resulting in an unusually high margin. 

Similarly, the Department does not 

apply a margin that has been discredited 

or judicially invalidated. See D & L 

Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 

1220, 1221 (CAFC 1997). 

In this case, there are no 

circumstances present to indicate that 

the selected margin is not appropriate as 

facts available. We have decided to use 

the highest cash deposit rate calculated 

for Essar from any prior segment of 

these proceedings as AFA. The 

Department considers this dumping 

margin relevant for use as AFA for this 

review because this margin is calculated 

based on Essar’s own information in the 

original investigation.3 Moreover, there 

is no information on the record of this 

review that demonstrates that 28.25 

percent is not an appropriate AFA rate 

for Essar. The Department finds that the 

use of the rate of 28.25 percent as an 

AFA rate is sufficiently high to ensure 

that Essar does not benefit from failing 

to cooperate in our review by refusing 

to respond to our questionnaire. See 

Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon–Quality 

Steel Plate Products from the Republic 

of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and 

Rescission of Administrative Review in 

Part, 73 FR 15132, 15133 (March 21, 

2008); see also Carbazole Violet Pigment 

23 from India. Thus, the Department 

considers the 28.25 percent rate 

corroborated ‘‘to the extent practicable’’ 

in accordance with the Act. 

Adjustment for Export Subsidies 

As noted above, in the original 

investigation, we subtracted the portion 

of the countervailing duty rate 

attributable to export subsidies (8.03 

percent) from the antidumping margin 

(36.53 percent) in order to calculate the 

cash–deposit rate of 28.25 percent. 

Because the AFA rate we selected for 

this review is the adjusted cash–deposit 

rate we calculated for Essar in the 

investigation, we are making no further 

adjustments under section 772(c)(1)(C) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily find that the following 

dumping margin exists for the period 

December 1, 2007, through November 

30, 2008. 

Producer/Manufacturer Rate Adjusted for 

Export Subsidies 

Essar ............................. 28.25 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Comments 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results and 

may submit case briefs and/or written 

comments within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, will 

be due five days later, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 

case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding 

are requested to submit with each 

argument (1) a statement of the issue, 

and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. Parties are requested to 

provide a summary of the arguments not 

to exceed five pages and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Additionally, 

parties are requested to provide their 

case brief and rebuttal briefs in 

electronic format (e.g., Microsoft Word, 

pdf, etc.). Interested parties, who wish 

to request a hearing or to participate if 

one is requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in case and rebuttal briefs. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this review, including the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any such 

written briefs or at the hearing, if held, 

not later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. 

Assessment Rate 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
1036 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the publication of the final results 

of this review. We will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. The final results of this review 

shall be the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of these reviews and for future deposits 

of estimated duties, where applicable. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘Assessment 

Policy Notice’’). 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 that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) 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 the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of hot–rolled carbon steel 

flat products from India entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) 

of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for 

the company listed above will be the 

rate established in the final results of 

this review, except if the rate is less 

than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de 

minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; 

(2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company–specific rate published for 

the most recent final results in which 

that manufacturer or exporter 

participated; (3) if the exporter is not a 

firm covered in these reviews, a prior 

review, or the original less–than-fair– 

value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent final results for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this or any previous 

review or the LTFV conducted by the 

Department, the cash deposit rate will 

be 23.87 percent, the all–others rate 

established in the LTFV. See Amended 

Final Determination. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping and countervailing 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 and countervailing duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping and 

countervailing duties. 

These preliminary results of review 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: December 30, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–128 Filed 01–07–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, invites comments on the 

proposed information collection 

requests as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before March 9, 

2010. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Acting 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory 

Information Management Services, 

Office of Management, publishes that 

notice containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection, 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or 

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of 

the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

The Department of Education is 

especially interested in public comment 

addressing the following issues: (1) Is 

this collection necessary to the proper 

functions of the Department; (2) will 

this information be processed and used 

in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate 

of burden accurate; (4) how might the 

Department enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (5) how might the 

Department minimize the burden of this 

collection on the respondents, including 

through the use of information 

technology. 

Dated: January 5, 2010. 

James Hyler, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Type of Review: New. 

Title: National Title I Study of 

Implementation and Outcomes: Early 

Childhood Language Development 

(ECLD). 

Frequency: One time. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 16. 

Burden Hours: 36. 

Abstract: The study is being 

conducted as part of the National 

Assessment of Title I, mandated by Title 

I, Part E, Section 1501 of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act. The data 

obtained by this information collection 

will provide a sampling frame of eligible 

schools for the National Title I Study of 

Implementation and Outcomes: Early 

Childhood Language Development 

(ECLD). Once school districts have been 

indentified to participate in the study, 

they will be asked to complete a short 

form providing information about Title 

I schools in their district. This 

information includes the percent of 

student in a selected school that are 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES