Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 167 / Monday, August 30, 2010 / Notices 52929 

available to us (currently within our 

files). 

Previous Petition to list Puget Sound 

China Rockfish and Tiger Rockfish 

We have received numerous petitions 

from Mr. Wright. In 1999, he petitioned 

us to list 18 species of Puget Sound 

marine fishes. Based on the information 

presented in that petition, and available 

in our files, we conducted status 

reviews on seven of those fishes. 

Information on the other eleven fishes 

(including China rockfish and tiger 

rockfish) was insubstantial and we 

therefore did not conduct status reviews 

(64 FR 33037; June 21, 1999). 

Analysis of Petition 

When reviewing a petition to list a 

species under the ESA, we consider 

information provided in the petition as 

well as information available in agency 

files. Mr. Wright’s petition provides 

information from SCUBA surveys 

conducted in the Georgia Basin from 

1998 to 2009. The petition points to the 

fact that there are few observations of 

China rockfish and tiger rockfish in 

these surveys. The petition provides no 

analysis to explain how these surveys 

can be interpreted to indicate either a 

low abundance level or a declining 

trend in abundance, either of which 

might be evidence of risk to the species. 

To the contrary, the petitioner 

acknowledges that adults of these two 

species tend to remain hidden in rocky 

habitats, which could make them 

difficult for SCUBA divers to observe. 

In the absence of any analysis in the 

petition, we independently reviewed 

the information from these surveys and 

concluded they do not provide evidence 

of low abundance or a declining trend 

in abundance. The surveys are 

opportunistic sightings, reported by 

recreational or professional divers. 

There is no research protocol associated 

with these SCUBA reports, and the 

identification of individual fish species 

cannot be independently verified. 

Because the area surveyed and the level 

of effort are opportunistic and variable, 

because the reports are not collected in 

a systematic sampling design, and 

because adults of these species tend to 

hide in rocky habitats that could make 

them difficult to observe, we concluded 

that these survey results do not support 

inferences about population abundance. 

The petition also provides a short 

description of the total recreational 

catch of these species over a 12–year 

period. The description appears under a 

heading in the petition entitled ‘‘Low 

Abundance Problem,’’ but the petition 

provides no explanation of how this 

information reveals anything about the 

abundance of these two species. In the 

absence of an analysis in the petition, 

we independently reviewed the 

information on recreational catches of 

these two species available in our 

records. The proportion of these two 

species in the recreational rockfish 

catch is low, approximately 1 percent 

over the 12–year period. Standing alone, 

however, this low percentage does not 

indicate a low occurrence of these 

rockfish species relative to others 

because, as noted above, adults of the 

petitioned species tend to remain 

hidden in rocky habitat and are 

therefore less available to anglers. Nor 

does this information reveal anything 

about the absolute abundance of these 

two species. The catch information 

therefore does not indicate that 

abundance of these species is low 

enough to pose a threat to viability. 

We agree with the petitioner’s 

assertion that China rockfish and tiger 

rockfish typically utilize a small home 

range and experience low productivity. 

However, as the petitioner 

acknowledges, a small home range 

causes individuals to remain hidden in 

rocky habitat, where they may 

experience lower mortality, as a result 

of less frequent exposure to predators. 

Low productivity can be a risk factor in 

some instances. However, low 

productivity is not an indication of 

declining abundance (another risk 

factor) since it reflects a life history 

trade-off between fecundity and life 

span. 

Finally, the petitioner fails to 

demonstrate how any of these 

individual pieces of information could 

be integrated into a trend analysis or 

some other type of analysis suggesting 

the two species are at risk. 

The petitioner states ‘‘This would be 

an ideal time to conduct a status review 

of these two species since most of the 

required assessment work has already 

been done and there is an existing 

Biological Review Team (BRT).’’ While 

it is true that NMFS recently completed 

an ESA review of five rockfish species 

in the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia 

(including the formation and use of a 

BRT), that is not a basis to conduct 

additional reviews under ESA section 

4(b)(3)(A). NMFS did not look at 

information on China rockfish and tiger 

rockfish during its review earlier in the 

year, and the BRT was subsequently 

disbanded. 

Petition Finding 

After reviewing the petition, as well 

as information readily available to us, 

we have determined that the petition 

does not present substantial scientific 

information indicating the petitioned 

action may be warranted. If new 

information becomes available to 

suggest that Georgia Basin populations 

of China rockfish and tiger rockfish may 

warrant listing under the ESA, we will 

reconsider conducting a status review. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

Dated: August 24, 2010. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21536 Filed 8–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

President’s Export Council: Meeting of 

the President’s Export Council 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of an open meeting. 

SUMMARY: The President’s Export 

Council will hold a meeting to discuss 

topics related to the National Export 

Initiative, and advice from the 

President’s Export Council as to how to 

promote U.S. exports, jobs, and growth. 

DATES: September 16, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. 

(EDT). 

ADDRESSES: The President’s Export 

Council will convene its next meeting 

via live webcast on the Internet at 

http://whitehouse.gov/live. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. 

Marc Chittum, President’s Export 

Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone: 202–482–1124, e-mail: 

Marc.Chittum@trade.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The President’s Export 

Council was first established by 

Executive Order on December 20, 1973 

to advise the President on matters 

relating to U.S. export trade and report 

to the President on its activities and on 

its recommendations for expanding U.S. 

exports. The President’s Export Council 

was renewed most recently by Executive 

Order 13511 of September 29, 2009, for 

the two-year period ending September 

30, 2011. 

Public Submissions: The public is 

invited to submit written statements to 

the President’s Export Council by C.O.B. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
52930 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 167 / Monday, August 30, 2010 / Notices 

1The bracketed section of the product 

description, [3,2-b:3′,2′-m], is not businessproprietary information. In this case, the brackets 

are simply part of the chemical nomenclature. 

September 10, 2010 by either of the 

following methods: 

Electronic Statements 

Send electronic statements to the 

President’s Export Council Web site at 

http://trade.gov/pec/peccomments.asp; 

or 

Paper Statements 

Send paper statements to J. Marc 

Chittum, President’s Export Council, 

Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. All 

statements will be posted on the 

President’s Export Council Web site 

(http://trade.gov/pec/peccomments.asp) 

without change, including any business 

or personal information provided such 

as names, addresses, e-mail addresses, 

or telephone numbers. All statements 

received, including attachments and 

other supporting materials, are part of 

the public record and subject to public 

disclosure. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. 

Meeting minutes: Copies of the 

Council’s meeting minutes will be 

available within 90 days of the meeting. 

Dated: August 25, 2010. 

J. Marc Chittum, 

Executive Secretary, President’s Export 

Council. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21641 Filed 8–26–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–838] 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From 

India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty ChangedCircumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 751(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 

351.221(c)(3), the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting a changed-circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on carbazole violet pigment 23 from 

India to determine whether Meghmani 

Pigments (Meghmani) is the successorin-interest to Alpanil Industries 

(Alpanil) for determining antidumping 

duty liability. Because Meghmani did 

not respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire, we have preliminarily 

determined that the use of facts 

available is appropriate to find that 

Meghmani is the successor-in-interest to 

Alpanil. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 30, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerrold Freeman or Richard Rimlinger, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0180 or (202) 482– 

4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 11, 2009, the 

Department was notified by Alpanil 

that, on April 9, 2009, Alpanil’s name 

was officially changed to Meghmani 

Pigments. In addition to a brief narrative 

explaining that there was no change in 

company ownership, management, 

production, office or factory location, 

employees, customers, or suppliers, a 

copy of ‘‘Form G’’ from the Gujurat State 

Registar of Firms was attached to 

demonstrate a record of all corporate 

changes for Alpanil/Meghmani since the 

incorporation of Alpanil in 1992. This 

attachment indicates that Alpanil’s 

name change to Meghmani was 

recorded on April 9, 2009. 

On March 9, 2010, in accordance with 

section 751(b) of the Act, 19 CFR 

351.216, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), we 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of initiation of an antidumping 

duty changed-circumstances review. See 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Changed-Circumstances Review, 75 FR 

10759 (March 9, 2010) (Initiation). In 

this notice we indicated that we would 

conduct the changed-circumstances 

review in the context of the 

administrative review of the order 

covering the period December 1, 2008, 

through November 30, 2009. 

On April 5, 2010, Meghmani 

withdrew its request for a review of its 

sales of merchandise subject to the 

antidumping duty order for the 2008/09 

period in a timely manner. Therefore, in 

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

we rescinded the 2008/09 review with 

respect to CVP 23 from India produced 

and/or exported by Meghmani. See 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: 

Rescission of Administrative Review, 75 

FR 25209 (May 7, 2010). In the notice 

we indicated that, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to ‘‘issue 

final results of the changedcircumstances review within 270 days 

after the date on which we initiated the 

changed-circumstances review.’’ See 75 

FR at 25210. 

On June 3, 2010, we sent a 

questionnaire to Meghmani requesting 

further information on the nature of the 

name change and whether additional 

changes had occurred. Although we 

granted Meghmani an extension of the 

deadline to respond, Meghmani did not 

respond to our questionnaire. Instead, 

on July 6, 2010, Meghmani notified the 

Department that it will not participate 

in the changed-circumstances review. 

Meghmani did not provide any reasons 

for its decision to withdraw its 

participation from the changedcircumstances review. 

Since the initiation of the review, no 

other interested party has submitted 

comments. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is carbazole violet pigment 23 identified 

as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical 

Abstract No. 6358–30–1, with the 

chemical name of diindolo [3,2-b:3′,2′- 

m] 1 triphenodioxazine, 8,18-dichloro-5, 

15-diethyl-5, 15-dihydro-, and 

molecular formula of C34H22Cl2N4O2. 

The subject merchandise includes the 

crude pigment in any form (e.g., dry 

powder, paste, wet cake) and finished 

pigment in the form of presscake and 

dry color. Pigment dispersions in any 

form (e.g., pigment dispersed in 

oleoresins, flammable solvents, water) 

are not included within the scope of the 

order. The merchandise subject to the 

order is classifiable under subheading 

3204.17.90.40 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

For the reason discussed below, we 

determine that the use of adverse facts 

available is appropriate for the 

preliminary results of the changedcircumstances review with respect to 

Meghmani. 

A. Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party withholds 

information requested by the 

administering authority, fails to provide 

such information by the deadlines for 

submission of the information and in 

the form or manner requested, 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under this title, or provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES