### 8178 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices

Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040; (3) Department of Commerce regulations set forth in part 351 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations, in particular sections 351.212(b) and 351.414(c) and (e); (4) the Import Administration Antidumping Manual (1997 ed.), including the computer programs referenced therein; and (5) the general procedures and methodology employed by the United States to determine dumping margins in administrative reviews, whereby the Department of Commerce, in comparing weighted average normal value with the transaction price of individual export transactions, treats as zero negative intermediate comparison results ( i.e.,
situations in which the individual export price is greater than the weighted average normal value), which methodology Vietnam asserts is commonly referred to as ‘‘ simple zeroing’’ and/or the U.S. ‘‘ zeroing procedures. ’’

Vietnam alleges that these laws, regulations, administrative procedures, practices, and methodologies are, as such and as applied in the determinations by the Department of Commerce and actions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the shrimp administrative reviews and new shipper reviews, inconsistent with Articles I, II, VI:1, and VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994; Articles 1,

2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 6.8, 6.10, 9.1, 9.3, 9.4, 11.2, 11.3, 18.1, and 18.4, and Annex II of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement onTariffs and Trade 1994 (the AntiDumping Agreement); Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; and Vietnam’s
Protocol of Accession to the WTO.

Vietnam alleges that the United States acted inconsistently with the WTO Agreement obligations identified above by applying so-called ‘‘ zeroing’’ in the determination of the margins of dumping in the reviews identified above, by repeatedly and consistently failing to provide most Vietnamese respondents seeking a review an opportunity to demonstrate the absence of dumping by being permitted to participate in a review, and by requiring companies to demonstrate their independence from government control and applying an adverse facts available rate to companies failing to do so in all

reviews.

Public Comment: Requirements for
Submissions

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit public comments electronically to http:// www.regulations.gov docket number USTR–2010–0008. If you are unable to submit comments using http:// www.regulations.gov, please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–9483 to arrange for an alternative method of

transmission.

To submit comments via http:// www.regulations.gov, enter docket
number USTR–2010–0008 on the home page and click ‘‘ search. ’’ The site will provide a search-results page listing all
documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice by selecting ‘‘Notice ’’ under ‘‘Document Type ’’ on the left side of the search results page, and click on the link
entitled ‘‘ Submit a Comment. ’’ (For further information on using the http: //www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on the ‘‘Help ’’ link at the top of the home page.)

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site provides the option of providing comments by filling in a ‘‘ Type Comment and Upload File ’’ field, or by attaching a document. It is expected that most comments will be provided in an
attached document. If a document is attached, it is necessary and sufficient to
type ‘‘ See attached’’ in the ‘‘ Type Comment and Upload File ’’ field.

A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as business confidential information must certify
that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the
submitter. Business confidential information must be clearly designated
as such and the submission must be
marked ‘‘ BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL ’’ at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment containing business
confidential information must be submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–3640. A non-confidential summary of the confidential
information must be submitted to http: //www.regulations.gov. The nonconfidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.

Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter— (1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as

‘‘ SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE ’’ at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3) Must provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice.

Any comment containing confidential information must be submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–3640. A non-confidential summary of the
confidential information must be
submitted to http:// www.regulations.gov. The nonconfidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.

USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement proceeding accessible to the public. The public file
will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel,the U.S. submissions, any nonconfidential submissions, or nonconfidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute; the report of the panel; and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body.

Comments will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2006.13, except
confidential business information exempt from public inspection in
accordance with 15 CFR 2006.15 or information determined by USTR to be
confidential in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2). Comments open to public inspection may be viewed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.

Steven F. Fabry,
Acting Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 2010–3551 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3190–W0–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Office of the Secretary**

**Application of Rugby Aviation LLC D/ B/A Northwest Sky Ferry for Commuter**  **Air Carrier Authority**

**AGENCY :**  Department of Transportation.

**ACTION :**  Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2010–2–7) Docket OST–2009–

0188.

**SUMMARY :**  The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Rugby


### 8179 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices

1 This application is subject to a motion to strike and request for a cease and desist order filed by CTR on January 14, 2010, which allege that the City has unlawfully removed part of the track. The issues raised by this filing will be resolved in a subsequent decision. Aviation, LLC d/b/a Northwest Sky Ferry fit, willing, and able, and awarding it commuter air carrier authority to conduct scheduled

commuter service.

**DATES :**  Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than February 26, 2010.

**ADDRESSES :**  Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Docket
DOT–OST–2009–0188 and addressed to Docket Operations, (M–30, Room W12– 140), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties
listed in Attachment A to the order.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Catherine O’Toole, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X–56, Room W86–489), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366–9721.

Dated: February 16, 2010.

Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary For Aviation and International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2010–3452 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Surface Transportation Board**

**[STB Docket No. AB–1036]**

**The City of Chicago, Illinois—Adverse Abandonment—Chicago Terminal**  **Railroad in Chicago, IL**

On February 1, 2010, the City of Chicago, IL (the City), filed an application under 49 U.S.C. 10903, requesting that the Surface Transportation Board (Board) authorize the third-party or adverse abandonment of two railroad lines in the City owned by the Chicago Terminal Railroad (CTR), totaling 1.625 miles: (1) a portion of the Kingsbury Branch from its southern
terminus at the intersection of Kingsbury, Division, and Halstead Streets, to, but not including, the point
at which the Goose Island Branch diverges from the Kingsbury Branch at or near Willow Street, a distance of approximately 6 city blocks (.75 mile) (the Kingsbury Segment); and (2) a portion of the Lakewood Avenue Line between the southwest right-of-way line of Clybourn Avenue and the Line’s northern terminus at Diversey Parkway, a distance of approximately 7 city blocks (.875 mile) (the Lakewood Segment). 1 The lines traverse United States Postal Service Zip Codes 60614
and 60622 and include no stations. The application is available on the Board’s
Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov, or a copy can be secured from applicant’s counsel, whose name and address appear below.

According to the City, these segments are not required for rail service, and
their abandonment would benefit the City by improving safety and facilitating
the reconstruction of the streets where
the track is located.

In a decision served in this proceeding on July 10, 2009, the City was granted exemptions from several statutory provisions as well as waivers of certain Board regulations at 49 CFR
1152 that were not relevant to its adverse abandonment application or that sought information not available to it. Specifically, the City was granted waiver of certain requirements pertaining to the notice of intent prescribed at 49 CFR 1152.21; waivers of and exemptions from requirements in 49 CFR 1152.20(a)(2)(i) and (a)(3), and 49 U.S.C. 10903(a)(3)(D) and (B) that the notice be served on significant users and posted, except to the extent necessary to require the City to mail a copy of its notice to four shippers located on contiguous lines; waiver of the requirement in 49 CFR 1152.20(a)(2)(xii)
that the notice be served on certain labor organizations; waiver of and exemption from the requirements pertaining to the System Diagram Map
in 49 CFR 1152.10 to 1152.14, 1152.24(e)(1), 1152.22(a)(5), and 49 U.S.C. 10903(c)(2); waiver of the requirements of 49 CFR 1152.22(b)–(d), which require a description of the physical condition of the line, estimated
deferred maintenance and rehabilitation costs, a description of service performed on the line during the prior year, and computation of the revenues and avoidable costs attributable to the line; certain requirements in 49 CFR 1152.22(i) pertaining to the draft Federal Register notice; waiver of the 1- year time limit on abandonment authority specified at 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2); exemption from 49 U.S.C. 10904, which governs offers of financial assistance (OFAs), and waiver of the implementing regulations at 49 CFR 1152.27; and exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10905, which provide for the offering of rail properties approved for abandonment for sale for public purposes, and waiver of the implementing regulations at 49 CFR

1152.28.

The City states that there is no documentation in its possession indicating that the lines contain Federally granted rights-of-way and that it will make any such documentation relating to this abandonment available promptly to those requesting it. The City’s entire case for adverse
abandonment was filed with the application.

The interests of railroad employees, if there are any employees on the lines, will be protected by the conditions set
forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.— Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979).

Any interested person may file written comments concerning the proposed abandonment or protests (including the protestant’s entire opposition case), by March 18, 2010. Persons who may oppose the proposed
adverse abandonment but who do not wish to participate fully in the process by submitting verified statements of witnesses containing detailed evidence should file comments. Persons opposing the proposed adverse abandonment who wish to participate actively and fully in the process should file a protest, observing the filing, service, and content requirements in 49 CFR 1152.25.
Because this is an adverse abandonment proceeding, OFAs and public use requests are not appropriate and will not be entertained. The City’s reply is due by April 2, 2010.

The Board has not yet had occasion to
decide whether the issuance of a
certificate of interim trail use in an
adverse abandonment would be consistent with the grant of such an application. Accordingly, any request
for a trail use condition under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) (49 CFR 1152.29) must be filed by March 18, 2010, and should address that issue. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $250 filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(27).

All filings in response to this notice
must refer to STB Docket No. AB–1036 and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001; (2) counsel for applicant—Thomas F. McFarland, 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1890, Chicago, IL 60604–1112; and (3) counsel for CTR—John D. Heffner, 1750 K Street, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006.

Filings may be submitted either via the Board’s e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should comply with the
instructions found on the Board’s http:// www.stb.dot.gov Web site, at the ‘‘EFILING’’ link. Any person submitting a