64254 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a sanctionable 

violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and this notice in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: October 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX I 

List of Comments in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Offsetting Negative Margins 

Comment 2: Quarterly Cost Methodology 

[FR Doc. 2010–26267 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–828] 

Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon 

Quality Steel Products From Brazil; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On April 14, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

hot-rolled, flat-rolled carbon quality 

steel products (hot-rolled steel) from 

Brazil. See Certain Hot-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 

From Brazil: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Extension of Time Limit for 

the Final Results, 75 FR 19369 (April 

14, 2010) (Preliminary Results). This 

review covers sales of subject 

merchandise made by Usinas 

Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais 

(USIMINAS) and Companhia 

Siderurgica Paulista (COSIPA) 

(collectively, USIMINAS) for the period 

March 1, 2008, to February 28, 2009. 

Based on our analysis of the comments 

received, we have made changes to the 

margin calculation; therefore, the final 

results differ from the preliminary 

results. The final weighted-average 

dumping margin for the reviewed firms 

is listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: October 19, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Edwards or Dena Crossland, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–8029 or (202) 482– 

3362, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 14, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on hot-rolled steel from Brazil for the 

period March 1, 2008, to February 28, 

2009. See Preliminary Results. As noted 

in the preliminary results, the 

Department conducted cost and sales 

verifications of USIMINAS’ 

questionnaire responses from March 1, 

2010, through March 5, 2010, and 

March 8, 2010, through March 12, 2010, 

respectively. See Preliminary Results at 

19372. Due to the necessary 

rescheduling of the verifications, the 

Department issued its verification 

reports subsequent to the Preliminary 

Results. See Memorandum to the File, 

from Laurens Van Houten, Senior 

Accountant, titled ‘‘Verification of the 

Cost Response of Usinas Siderurgicas de 

Minas Gerais (‘Usiminas’) and 

Companhia Siderurgica Paulista 

(‘Cosipa’) in the Antidumping Review of 

Hot-Rolled Steel from Brazil,’’ dated 

April 16, 2010 (USIMINAS Cost 

Verification Report); see also, 

Memorandum to the File, from Patrick 

Edwards and Dena Crossland, Analysts, 

titled ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

Responses of Usinas Siderurgicas de 

Minas Gerais (USIMINAS) and 

Companhia Siderurgica Paulista 

(COSIPA) in the Antidumping Review 

of Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 

Carbon Quality Steel Products from 

Brazil,’’ dated June 22, 2010 (USIMINAS 

Sales Verification Report). Following 

the release of both verification reports, 

the Department issued a letter to 

USIMINAS requesting specific changes 

to its sales database based upon 

USIMINAS’ disclosure of minor errors 

at the onset of the sales verification and 

findings made by the Department during 

the verification. See Letter from 

Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, 

to USIMINAS, titled ‘‘Requested 

Changes to Sales Databases Resulting 

from Sales Verification,’’ dated June 23, 

2010. USIMINAS submitted its response 

and revised databases on July 8, 2010, 

which served as the start of the period 

in which parties could submit 

comments and rebuttal comments on 

the Preliminary Results. 

In response to the Department’s 

invitation for comments on the 

preliminary results of this review, 

USIMINAS timely submitted its case 

brief on July 1, 2010. See Letter from 

USIMINAS and COSIPA to the 

Department of Commerce, titled 

‘‘Submission of Case Brief: Hot-Rolled 

Steel from Brazil,’’ dated July 1, 2010 

(USIMINAS Case Brief). United States 

Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), a 

petitioning party in this proceeding 

(petitioner), submitted its case brief on 

July 21, 2010. See Letter from United 

States Steel Corporation, titled ‘‘Case 

Brief: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from Brazil,’’ dated July 

21, 2010 (U.S. Steel Case Brief). On July 

28, 2010, U.S. Steel and Nucor 

Corporation (Nucor), a domestic 

interested party in this proceeding, 

submitted their rebuttal briefs. See 

Letter from United States Steel 

Corporation, titled ‘‘Rebuttal Brief: 

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Brazil,’’ dated July 28, 

2010 (U.S. Steel Rebuttal Brief); see 

also, Letter from Nucor Corporation, 

titled ‘‘Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from Brazil: Rebuttal 

Brief,’’ dated July 28, 2010 (Nucor 

Rebuttal Brief). No public hearing was 

requested or held. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is March 

1, 2008, to February 28, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of this order, the 

products covered are certain hot-rolled 

flat-rolled carbon-quality steel 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 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 this scope are 

vacuum degassed, fully stabilized 

(commonly referred to as interstitial-free 

(IF)) steels, high strength low alloy 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64255 

(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 and/or niobium added to 

stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. 

HSLA steels are recognized as steels 

with micro-alloying levels of elements 

such as chromium, copper, niobium, 

titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. 

The substrate for motor lamination 

steels contains micro-alloying levels of 

elements such as silicon and aluminum. 

Steel products to be included in the 

scope of this order, regardless of 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) definitions, are 

products in which: (1) Iron 

predominates, by weight, over each of 

the other contained elements; (2) the 

carbon content is 2 percent or less, by 

weight; and (3) none of the elements 

listed below exceeds the quantity, by 

weight, respectively indicated: 

1.80 percent of manganese, or 

1.50 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 

0.012 percent of boron, or 

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 

0.10 percent of niobium, or 

0.41 percent of titanium, 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 and/or specifically excluded 

from the scope of this order: 

—Alloy hot-rolled steel products in 

which at least one of the chemical 

elements exceeds those listed above 

(including, e.g., ASTM specifications 

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

—SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and 

higher. 

—Ball bearing 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 1.50 percent. 

—ASTM specifications A710 and A736. 

—USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS 

AR 400, USS AR 500). 

—Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the 

following chemical, physical and 

mechanical specifications: 

C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni 

0.10–0.14% 0.90% Max 0.025% Max 0.005% Max 0.30–0.50% 0.50–0.70% 0.20–0.40% 0.20% Max 

Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063–0.198 inches; Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 70,000–88,000 

psi. 

—Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the 

following chemical, physical and 

mechanical specifications: 

C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni Mo 

0.10–0.16% 0.70–0.90% 0.025% Max 0.006% Max 0.30–0.50% 0.50–0.70% 0.25% Max 0.20% Max 0.21% Max 

Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi 

Aim. 

—Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the 

following chemical, physical and 

mechanical specifications: 

C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni V(wt.) Cb 

0.10–0.14% 1.30–1.80% 0.025% 

Max 

0.005% 

Max 

0.30–0.50% 0.50–0.70% 0.20–0.40% 0.20% 

Max 

0.10 Max 0.08% 

Max 

Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi 

Aim. 

—Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the 

following chemical, physical and 

mechanical specifications: 

C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni Nb Ca Al 

0.15% 

Max 

1.40% 

Max 

0.025% 

Max 

0.010% 

Max 

0.50% 

Max 

1.00% 

Max 

0.50% 

Max 

0.20% 

Max 

0.005% 

Min 

Treated 0.01–0.07% 

Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses ≤0.148 inches and 65,000 psi 

minimum for thicknesses >0.148 inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum. 

—Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phasehardened, primarily with a ferriticmartensitic microstructure, contains 

0.9 percent up to and including 1.5 

percent silicon by weight, further 

characterized by either (i) tensile 

strength between 540 N/mm2 and 640 

N/mm2 and an elongation percentage 

26 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm 

and above, or (ii) a tensile strength 

between 590 N/mm2 and 690 N/mm2

and an elongation percentage 25 

percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and 

above. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64256 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

—Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE 

grade 1050, in coils, with an inclusion 

rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 

45, Method A, with excellent surface 

quality and chemistry restrictions as 

follows: 

—0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 

0.015 percent maximum sulfur, and 

0.20 percent maximum residuals 

including 0.15 percent maximum 

chromium. 

—Grade ASTM A570–50 hot-rolled steel 

sheet in coils or cut lengths, width of 

74 inches (nominal, within ASTM 

tolerances), thickness of 11 gauge 

(0.119 inch nominal), mill edge and 

skin passed, with a minimum copper 

content of 0.20%. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is classified 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, 7210.70.30.00, 

7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 

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, 

7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 

7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. Certain 

hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality 

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 

7226.99.01.80. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and Customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under this order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by interested parties in 

this administrative review are addressed 

in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Hot-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 

from Brazil’’ (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum), from Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated October 12, 2010, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of all issues, which parties have 

raised and to which we have responded, 

in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is attached to this notice 

as an appendix. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this review and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit in room 7046 of 

the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly via the Internet at 

http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/fm/ 

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Since the Preliminary Results, and 

based upon comments received from 

parties in their respective case and 

rebuttal briefs and findings at the sales 

verification, we have made several 

changes to USIMINAS’ margin 

calculation. These changes are 

discussed in the relevant sections of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, 

where applicable, and the Memorandum 

to the File, from Patrick S. Edwards, 

Case Analyst, titled ‘‘Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Hot-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 

from Brazil: Analysis of the Sales 

Responses Submitted by Usinas 

Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais 

(USIMINAS) and Companhia 

Siderurgica Paulista (COSIPA),’’ dated 

October 12, 2010 (Final Analysis 

Memorandum). 

Partial Adverse Facts Available 

As noted in the USIMINAS Sales 

Verification Report, USIMINAS had 

reported interest revenue received on 

certain transactions in the comparison 

market during the POR. However, as 

found during the sales verification, 

USIMINAS was unable to demonstrate 

that the interest revenue reported was 

attributable to subject merchandise, nor 

that the company captured all relevant 

receipts of interest revenue on subject 

sales in its databases. See USIMINAS 

Sales Verification Report at 5–6. As 

such, the interest revenue reported on 

USIMINAS’ comparison market sales 

was unverifiable. See USIMINAS Sales 

Verification Report at 5 and Exhibit 1 

for complete details and an explanation 

of this finding. 

Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), provides 

that the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ (FA) 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, which 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding, 

or (D) provides information that cannot 

be verified as provided by section 782(i) 

of the Act. 

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. See Statement 

of Administrative Action, 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. no. 103–316, Vol. 

1 (1994) (SAA), at 870; see also, Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 

Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products from the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000) 

(Russian Cold-Rolled). Such an adverse 

inference may include reliance on 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. See 

section 776(b) of the Act. 

Although USIMINAS provided an 

explanation at the onset of its sales 

verification with regard to the error in 

its reported, and potentially unreported, 

comparison market interest revenue 

(which was disclosed as a minor 

correction), we find that the systemic 

nature of these incorrect and 

unverifiable revenue receipts constitute 

a greater concern than that of a minor 

correction disclosure, as the extent to 

which interest revenue receipts are 

either unreported or reported 

incorrectly remains unascertainable. 

Ultimately, USIMINAS failed to provide 

accurate and timely data in this capacity 

and, furthermore, these specific data 

were unable to be verified by the 

Department. Since USIMINAS failed to 

provide accurate and complete 

information regarding its comparison 

market interest revenue, despite the 

many opportunities available to the 

company to correct and supply this 

information, we have determined, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(B) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64257 

of the Act, that it is appropriate to base 

USIMINAS’ dumping margin, in part, 

on FA. 

Furthermore, in selecting from among 

the FA, we have determined, pursuant 

to section 776(b) of the Act, it is 

appropriate to use an adverse inference 

(AFA) because USIMINAS failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with requests for 

information in this regard. See Nippon 

Steel Corporation v. United States, 337 

F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003), where 

the Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit provided an explanation of the 

‘‘failure to act to the best of its ability’’ 

standard noting that the Department 

need not show intentional conduct 

existed on the part of the respondent, 

but merely that a ‘‘failure to cooperate to 

the best of a respondent’s ability’’ 

existed (i.e., information was not 

provided ‘‘under circumstances in 

which it is reasonable to conclude that 

less than full cooperation has been 

shown’’). Therefore, the Department 

finds that, in selecting from among the 

facts available, an adverse inference is 

appropriate. 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.’’ Id. 

We have therefore employed AFA 

with regard to USIMINAS’ reported 

comparison market interest revenue 

earned on late payments, used in the 

calculation of USIMINAS’ overall 

dumping margin for these final results. 

We have used USIMINAS’ own reported 

information on the record of the instant 

review to derive these interest revenue 

amounts and, therefore, find that the 

rate is fully corroborated. See section 

776(c) of the Act. Furthermore, as 

demonstrated in the Department’s Final 

Analysis Memorandum, we have 

limited the application of AFA to only 

those customers which issued an 

interest revenue payment during the 

POR. Rather than applying these AFA 

interest revenue payments to all 

comparison market sales observations, 

we find this methodology to be 

conservative and reflective of the fact 

that interest revenue payments are 

recorded in USIMINAS’ accounting 

system on a customer-specific basis. See 

USIMINAS Sales Verification Report at 

5. For a complete explanation of the 

methodology used to calculate these 

AFA interest revenue payments, see 

Final Analysis Memorandum at 4. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine the following weighted 

average percentage margin exists for the 

period March 1, 2008, through February 

28, 2009: 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weighted average margin 

(percentage) 

Usinas Siderurgicas de 

Minas Gerais (USIMINAS)/ 

Companhia Siderurgica 

Paulista (COSIPA) ............ 5.16 

Assessment 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 

351.212(b). The Department calculated 

an assessment rate for each importer of 

the subject merchandise covered by the 

review. Upon issuance of the final 

results of this review, for any importerspecific assessment rates calculated in 

the final results that are above de 

minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), 

we will issue appraisement instructions 

directly to CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on appropriate entries by 

applying the per-unit dollar amount 

against each unit of merchandise on 

each of that importer’s entries during 

the review period. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). The Department intends 

to issue assessment instructions to CBP 

15 days after the date of publication of 

these final results of review. 

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). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by USIMINAS or COSIPA for 

which either company did not know the 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-other’s rate if there is 

no company-specific rate for an 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of these final results of 

administrative review, consistent with 

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rate for the reviewed company 

will be the rate listed above; (2) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, but was covered in a previous 

review or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review, a prior 

review, or the original LTFV 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be 42.12 

percent, the all-others rate established 

in the LTFV investigation. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain HotRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 

Products from Brazil, 67 FR 11093 

(March 12, 2002). These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notifications to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APOs) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return or destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: October 12, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix—List of Issues in Issues and 

Decision Memorandum— 

Comment 1: Use of Exchange Rates from 

Factiva 

Comment 2: Interest Income on Judicial 

Escrow Deposits 

Comment 3: U.S. Credit Expense 

[FR Doc. 2010–26270 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES