Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 73033 

National Ranking Considerations 

The appropriate State Conservationist 

will evaluate proposals using a 

competitive process and forward 

recommended proposals to the Chief for 

review and selection. The Chief will 

give a higher priority to proposals that: 

(a) Have a high potential to achieve 

wetland restoration; 

(b) Have a high potential to 

significantly improve water quality; 

(c) Have a high potential to 

significantly improve wildlife habitat; 

(d) Significantly leverage non-Federal 

financial and technical resources and 

coordinate with other local, State, tribal, 

or Federal efforts; 

(e) Demonstrate the partner’s history 

of working cooperatively with 

landowners on conservation easements; 

(f) Provide innovation in wetland 

protection, restoration, and 

enhancement methods and outcomebased performance measures and 

methods; 

(g) Provide evidence that wetland 

restoration and enhancement activities 

will be completed within 2 years of 

easement closing; 

(h) Provide for monitoring and 

evaluation of the effectiveness of the 

restoration activities on water quality; 

(i) Provide for matching financial or 

technical assistance funds to assist 

landowners with the implementation of 

the Wetlands Reserve Plan of 

Operations and associated contracts; 

(j) Facilitate the submission of 

landowner applications; 

(k) Provide for outreach to, and 

participation of, Indian tribes, beginning 

farmers or ranchers, socially 

disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, and 

limited resource farmers or ranchers 

within the area covered by the 

agreement; and 

(l) Integrate a MRBI–WREP proposal 

with a MRBI–CCPI proposed or 

approved project. 

Partnership Agreements 

Upon proposal selection, NRCS will 

enter an agreement with a partner as the 

mechanism for partner participation in 

WREP. At a minimum, the agreement 

will address: 

(a) The role of the partner; 

(b) The role of NRCS; 

(c) The format and frequency of 

reports that is required as a condition of 

the agreement; 

(d) The Plan of Work and budget to 

identify other funding sources (if 

applicable) for financial or technical 

assistance; 

(e) The specified project schedule and 

timeframe; 

(f) Whether the agreement will serve 

as an obligating document or whether 

funds will be obligated under a separate 

agreement with the partner or with a 

third party; and 

(g) Other requirements deemed 

necessary by NRCS to achieve purposes 

of the WRP. 

Landowner Application 

Landowners must meet the eligibility 

requirements of WRP, as published in 7 

CFR part 1467. Landowners interested 

in participating may apply for 

designated WREP funds at their local 

service center after WREP proposals are 

selected. In FY 2011, NRCS will make 

WREP funds available to eligible 

landowners to enroll land under a 

permanent easement, a 30-year 

easement, a 30-year contract on acreage 

owned by Indian tribes, or through a 

Restoration Agreement. 

NRCS and the partner may assist 

landowners in determining whether the 

application is appropriate for WREP 

depending on the wetland protection, 

restoration, and enhancement activities 

that the applicant seeks to install or 

perform. 

Signed the 20th day of November, 2010, in 

Washington, DC. 

Dave White, 

Vice President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation and Chief, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29958 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–502] 

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes 

and Tubes from Thailand: Amended 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 29, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–2371. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 13, 2010, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) completed 

the final results of administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

circular welded carbon steel pipes and 

tubes (pipes and tubes) from Thailand, 

covering the period March 1, 2008 

through February 28, 2009. The final 

results were subsequently released to all 

parties in the proceeding, and published 

in the Federal Register on October 20, 

2010. See Circular Welded Carbon Steel 

Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 64696 

(October 20, 2010). 

The Department disclosed the 

calculations in connection with the final 

results as required under 19 CFR 

351.224(b). On October 20, 2010, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), we 

received a timely filed allegation from 

the respondent in this administrative 

review, Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) 

Company, Limited (Saha Thai), that the 

Department made a ministerial error 

with respect to the calculation of Saha 

Thai’s dumping margin. See Letter from 

Saha Thai to the Department of 

Commerce, regarding ‘‘Ministerial Error 

in Final Results,’’ dated October 20, 

2010. For further details, see 

Memorandum from Myrna Lobo, Case 

Analyst, and Heidi Schriefer, Senior 

Accountant, to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Director, titled, ‘‘Ministerial Error 

Allegation—Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Circular Welded Carbon Steel 

Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Saha 

Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company Ltd.,’’ 

dated November 19, 2010 (Ministerial 

Error Allegation Memorandum). We did 

not receive comments on this allegation 

from any other interested parties. 

A ministerial error, as defined at 

section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), includes ‘‘errors 

in addition, subtraction, or other 

arithmetic function, clerical errors 

resulting from inaccurate copying, 

duplication, or the like, and any other 

type of unintentional error which the 

Department considers ministerial.’’ See 

also 19 CFR 351.224(f). In its letter, Saha 

Thai alleges that the Department made 

a ministerial error by using Saha Thai’s 

2008 selling and administrative 

expenses to calculate Saha Thai’s 2007 

general and administrative (G&A) 

expense ratio. As stated in the final cost 

calculation memorandum 

accompanying the Final Results, we 

calculated the fiscal year 2007 G&A 

expense rate to use in the calculation of 

cost of production and constructed 

value for products with dates of sale 

prior to the POR (i.e., the pre-POR 

quarters). See Memorandum from Heidi 

K. Schriefer, Senior Accountant to Neal 

M. Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Final Results—Saha 

Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

73034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 

(‘‘Saha Thai’’)’’ dated October 13, 2010. 

The Department agrees that this 

constitutes a ministerial error within the 

meaning of section 751(h) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.224(f) because it 

inadvertently used the 2008 figure 

instead of the 2007 figure to calculate 

the 2007 G&A expense ratio. Therefore, 

the Department has corrected this 

expense ratio and revised its margin 

calculations to reflect this correction. 

See Ministerial Error Allegation 

Memorandum at 2. 

In accordance with section 751(h) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are 

amending the final results in this 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of pipes and tubes from Thailand. As a 

result of correcting the ministerial error, 

the amended final weighted-average 

dumping margin is as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Final results 

weighted-average 

margin percentage 

Amended final results weighted-average margin percentage 

Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Co. Ltd. ....................................................................................................... 2.13 percent 1.76 percent 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department 

calculates an assessment rate for each 

importer of the subject merchandise. 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of these amended final 

results of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the period of review produced by 

the company included in these 

amended final results of review for 

which the reviewed company did not 

know their merchandise was destined 

for the United States. In such instances, 

we will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the all-others rate 

from the investigation if there is no rate 

for the intermediate company involved 

in the transaction. For a full discussion 

of this clarification, see Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

amended final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of these amended final results, as 

provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act: (1) For the company covered by 

this review, the cash deposit rate will be 

the rate listed above; (2) for 

merchandise exported by producers or 

exporters not covered in this review but 

covered in a previous segment of this 

proceeding, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published in the most recent final 

results in which that producer or 

exporter participated; (3) if the exporter 

is not a firm covered in this review or 

in any previous segment of this 

proceeding, but the producer is, the 

cash deposit rate will be that established 

for the producer of the merchandise in 

these final results of review or in the 

most recent final results in which that 

producer participated; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the producer is a firm 

covered in this review or in any 

previous segment of this proceeding, the 

cash deposit rate will be 15.67 percent, 

the all-others rate established in the less 

than fair value investigation. See 

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 

Tubes From Thailand: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 51 FR 3384 (January 27, 

1986). 

Notification of 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 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction 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/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 violation that 

is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

amended final results of review and 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a), 751(h), and 777(i) of the Act, and 

19 CFR 351.224(e). 

Dated: November 19, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29962 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of 

Scientific Instruments 

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– 

36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we 

invite comments on the question of 

whether instruments of equivalent 

scientific value, for the purposes for 

which the instruments shown below are 

intended to be used, are being 

manufactured in the United States. 

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and 

be postmarked on or before December 

20, 2010. Address written comments to 

Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 

3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Washington, DC 20230. Applications 

may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 

5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce in Room 3720. 

Docket Number: 10–065. Applicant: 

Vanderbilt University, 2201 West End 

Avenue, Nashville, TN 37235. 

Instrument: Electron Microscope. 

Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech 

Republic. Intended Use: The instrument 

will be used to support general 

biological investigations into structure 

function relationships. Key capabilities 

of the instrument include extended 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES