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
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