Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 167 / Monday, August 30, 2010 / Notices 52931 

2Because the information upon which we are 

relying was obtained in the course of the review 

and is not secondary information, corrobation of 

this information is not necessary. See section 776(c) 

of the Act. 

of the Act, the Department shall use 

facts otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. 

Because Meghmani did not respond to 

our June 3, 2010, questionnaire, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) 

of the Act, we must rely entirely on facts 

available. 

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for 

Facts Available 

In selecting among the facts otherwise 

available, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that, if the Department finds 

that an interested party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information, the Department may use an 

inference adverse to the interests of that 

party. In addition, the Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Rep. 103–316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. 

(1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 

4040 (SAA), establishes that the 

Department may employ an adverse 

inference ‘‘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. The 

SAA also instructs the Department to 

consider, in employing adverse 

inferences, ‘‘the extent to which a party 

may benefit from its own lack of 

cooperation.’’ Id. Moreover, ‘‘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). 

We find that, by failing completely to 

respond to our questionnaire in the 

changed-circumstances review 

concerning its name change, Meghmani 

withheld requested information and 

thus failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability and, therefore, we may use an 

inference that is adverse to the interests 

of Meghmani. 

C. Selection of Information Used as 

Facts Available 

Where the Department applies an 

adverse inference because a respondent 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information, section 776(b) 

of the Act authorizes the Department to 

rely on information derived from the 

petition, a final determination, a 

previous administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. See 

also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 

870. 

Because we are making an adverse 

inference with regard to Meghmani 

based on the most recent information at 

our disposal, we preliminarily find that 

Meghmani is the successor-in-interest to 

Alpanil. In making the adverse 

inference, we have relied on the 

information placed on the record by 

Meghmani to determine that Meghmani 

is the successor-in-interest to Alpanil. 

See section 776(b) of the Act.2 If we 

were to find that Meghmani is not the 

successor-in-interest to Alpanil, that 

would ensure that Meghmani would 

‘‘obtain a more favorable result by failing 

to cooperate’’ because the all-others rate 

of 27.48 percent for the antidumping 

duty order would apply to Meghmani 

which is significantly lower than 

Alpanil’s current rate of 58.90 percent. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine that Meghmani is the 

successor-in-interest to Alpanil and will 

assign to Meghmani the same treatment 

as Alpanil with respect to the 

antidumping duty proceeding. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs from interested parties 

may be submitted not later than 15 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice of preliminary results of changedcircumstances review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs from 

interested parties, limited to the issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be 

submitted not later than five days after 

the time limit for filing the case briefs 

or comments. Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument a statement of the issue, 

a summary of the arguments not 

exceeding five pages, and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate in a hearing 

if a hearing is requested must submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

within 15 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Such requests should contain the 

following information: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; (3) a list 

of issues to be discussed. Issues raised 

in the hearing will be limited to those 

discussed in the case briefs. If 

requested, any hearing will be held two 

days after the scheduled date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of the final 

results of this changed-circumstances 

review, including the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any written 

briefs or at the hearing if requested. 

As indicated in the Initiation, during 

the course of this changedcircumstances review we will not 

change any cash-deposit requirements 

on entries of merchandise subject to the 

antidumping duty order unless a change 

is determined to be warranted pursuant 

to the final results of this changedcircumstances review. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(b) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216. 

Dated: August 23, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21577 Filed 8–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1703] 

Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 

126 Under Alternative Site Framework; 

Reno, NV 

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, the Board adopted the 

alternative site framework (ASF) in 

December 2008 (74 FR 1170, 01/12/09; 

correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09) as an 

option for the establishment or 

reorganization of general-purpose zones; 

Whereas, the Economic Development 

Authority of Western Nevada, grantee of 

Foreign-Trade Zone 126, submitted an 

application to the Board (FTZ Docket 

26–2010, filed 4/19/2010) for authority 

to reorganize under the ASF with a 

service area of Carson City, Douglas and 

Storey Counties as well as portions of 

Churchill, Lyon and Washoe Counties, 

Nevada, in and adjacent to the Reno 

Customs and Border Protection port of 

entry, FTZ 126’s existing Sites 1, 4–14 

and 17 would be categorized as magnet 

sites, existing Sites 2, 3, 15 and 16 

would be categorized as usage-driven 

sites, and the grantee proposes two 

additional usage-driven sites (Sites 18 

and 19); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 21594–21595, 4/26/10) 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
52932 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 167 / Monday, August 30, 2010 / Notices 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to reorganize FTZ 126 

under the alternative site framework is 

approved, subject to the FTZ Act and 

the Board’s regulations, including 

Section 400.28, to the Board’s standard 

2,000-acre activation limit for the 

overall general-purpose zone project, to 

a five-year ASF sunset provision for 

magnet sites that would terminate 

authority for Sites 1, 4, 5, 7–14 and 17 

if not activated by August 31, 2015, and 

to a three-year ASF sunset provision for 

usage-driven sites that would terminate 

authority for Sites 2, 3, 15–16 and 18– 

19 if no foreign-status merchandise is 

admitted for a bona fide customs 

purpose by August 31, 2013. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of 

August 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21573 Filed 8–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

Foreign-Trade Zone 43—Battle Creek, 

MI; Site Renumbering Notice 

Foreign-Trade Zone 43 was approved 

by the FTZ Board on October 19, 1978 

(Board Order 138, 43 FR 50233, 10/27/ 

78), and expanded on December 27, 

1990 (Board Order 496, 56 FR 675, 1/8/ 

91), January 3, 1992 (Board Order 554, 

57 FR 1143, 1/10/92 and Board Order 

555, 57 FR 1143, 1/10/92), and June 20, 

1997 (Board Order 897, 62 FR 36044, 7/ 

3/97 and Board Order 898, 62 FR 36043, 

7/3/97). 

FTZ 43 currently consists of 5 ‘‘sites’’ 

totaling 1,820 acres in the Battle Creek, 

Michigan area. The current update does 

not alter the physical boundaries that 

have previously been approved, but 

instead involves an administrative 

renumbering that separates certain noncontiguous sites for record-keeping 

purposes. 

Under this revision, the site list for 

FTZ 43 will be as follows: Site 1 (1,710 

acres)—within the Fort Custer Industrial 

Park, Battle Creek; Site 2 (21 acres)— 

Columbia West Industrial Park, Battle 

Creek; Site 3 (23 acres)—6677 Beatrice 

Drive in Texas Township (Kalamazoo 

County); Site 4 (22 acres)—8250 Logistic 

Drive, Zeeland Township (Ottawa 

County), some 20 miles southwest of 

Grand Rapids; Site 5 (30 acres)—located 

within the 120-acre St. Joseph River 

Harbor Development Area adjacent to 

Lake Michigan in Benton Harbor 

(Berrien County), some 50 miles east of 

Battle Creek; Site 7 (14 acres)—72100 

Highway M–40 South, Lawton (Van 

Buren County); and Site 8 (50,000 sq. 

ft.)—located at 1609 Parnall Road, 

Jackson (approved on a temporary basis 

until 1/31/11). 

For further information, contact 

Elizabeth Whiteman at 

Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202) 

482–0473. 

Dated: August 25, 2010. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21572 Filed 8–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

National Security Agency 

Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive 

License; Doar, Pekuin, Sall Limited 

Liability Company 

AGENCY: National Security Agency, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The National Security Agency 

hereby gives notice of its intent to grant 

Doar, Pekuin, Sall Limited Liability 

Company a revocable, non-assignable, 

exclusive, license to practice the 

following Government-Owned 

invention as described in U.S. Patent 

No. 6,404,407 entitled ‘‘Ridge laser with 

oxidized strain-compensated 

superlattice of group III–V 

semiconductor.’’ The invention is 

assigned to the United States 

Government as represented by the 

National Security Agency. 

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the 

grant of this license has fifteen (15) days 

from the publication date of this notice 

to file written objections along with any 

supporting evidence, if any. 

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be 

filed with the National Security Agency 

Technology Transfer Program, 9800 

Savage Road, Suite 6541, Fort George G. 

Meade, MD 20755–6541. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marian T. Roche, Director, Technology 

Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, 

Suite 6541, Fort George G. Meade, MD 

20755–6541, telephone (443) 479–9569. 

Dated: August 25, 2010. 

Mitchell S. Bryman, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21540 Filed 8–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Commission Meeting and 

Public Hearing 

Notice is hereby given that the 

Delaware River Basin Commission will 

hold an informal conference followed 

by a public hearing on Wednesday, 

September 15, 2010. The hearing will be 

part of the Commission’s regular 

business meeting. The conference 

session and business meeting both are 

open to the public and will be held at 

the West Trenton Volunteer Fire 

Company, located at 40 West Upper 

Ferry Road, West Trenton, New Jersey. 

The conference among the 

commissioners and staff will begin at 

10:30 a.m. and will consist of: A report 

by staff on the year’s progress in 

implementing the 2004 Basin Plan; a 

report by a representative of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers on the regional 

sediment management planning 

process; and a presentation by a 

representative of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency on 

the Delaware Basin Source Water 

Collaborative Forum to take place on 

March 10, 2011. 

The subjects of the public hearing to 

be held during the 1:30 p.m. business 

meeting include the dockets listed 

below: 

1. Upper Southampton Municipal 

Authority, D–1965–023 CP–2. An 

application for the renewal of a 

groundwater withdrawal project to 

supply the docket holder’s water supply 

distribution system from existing Wells 

Nos. 3, 7, and 9. The docket holder 

requests an allocation of 13.53 million 

gallons per month (mgm). The project 

wells were constructed in the Stockton 

Formation and are located in the 

Southampton and Mill Creek 

Watersheds in Upper Southampton 

Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 

in the Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Ground Water Protected Area (GWPA). 

2. Abington Township, D–1973–191 

CP–4. An application for renewal of the 

Abington Township Wastewater 

Treatment Plant (WWTP). The existing 

WWTP will continue to discharge 

treated effluent at an annual average 

flow of 3.91 million gallons per day 

(mgd) to Sandy Run, a tributary of the 

Wissahickon Creek, which drains to the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES