Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 231 / Thursday, December 2, 2010 / Notices 75171 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Minnkota’s proposed Project is to 

construct a 230 kilovolt (kV) 

transmission line between the Wilton 

Substation near Bemidji, Minnesota and 

the Boswell Substation near Grand 

Rapids, Minnesota, which will cross 

portions of Beltrami, Hubbard, Itasca, 

and Cass counties. The Project involves 

modifying the Wilton and Boswell 

substations, constructing a new 115 kV 

breaker station at Nary Junction, 

Minnesota, and depending on the route 

alternative selected, upgrading the 

existing or constructing a new 

substation in the Cass Lake, Minnesota 

area. The purpose of the Project is for 

the Applicants to meet projected future 

electric demand and to maintain electric 

transmission reliability standards in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC). The Project as 

proposed provides increased voltage 

support not only to the Bemidji to 

Grand Rapids area, including the Leech 

Lake Reservation, but is also required to 

improve the regional transmission 

reliability throughout the Red River 

Valley and north central Minnesota. 

Refer to Final EIS, pp. 2–3, and the 

Alternative Evaluation Study, Section 

1.2, for additional detail. 

In accordance with NEPA, the CEQ 

regulations for implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA, and 

applicable agency NEPA implementing 

regulations, RUS, CNF, USACE, and 

LLBO DRM cooperated in the 

development of a Final EIS to assess the 

potential environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed Project. 

The decision being documented in 

RUS’s ROD is that the Agency agrees to 

consider, subject to loan approval, 

funding the proposed Project (Route 

Alternative 4). Because of the distinct 

federal actions being proposed, RUS, 

USACE and CNF decided to issue 

separate RODs. LLBO DRM’s decision 

will be through a Tribal Resolution. 

On July 18, 2008, RUS published in 

the Federal Register at 73 FR 41312 a 

Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the 

proposed Project. On March 3, 2010, 

RUS published its Notice of Availability 

(NOA) of the Draft EIS for the proposed 

Project in the Federal Register at 75 FR 

9573. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency acknowledged 

receipt of the Draft EIS on March 5, 

2010, from RUS. The 45-day comment 

period ended on April 19, 2010. All 

comments on the Draft EIS have been 

entered into the administrative record, 

responses are included in the Final EIS, 

and the Final EIS was modified as 

appropriate. RUS published its NOA of 

the Final EIS for the proposed Project in 

the Federal Register on September 15, 

2010 at 75 FR 56051. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

acknowledged receipt of the Final EIS 

on September 17, 2010, from RUS. The 

30-day waiting period ended on October 

18, 2010. One comment was received 

and is addressed in RUS’s ROD. 

After considering various ways to 

meet these future needs, Minnkota 

identified construction of the proposed 

Project (Route Alternative 4) as its best 

course of action. 

The Final EIS considered 11 

alternatives to meet the Project need, 

including five alternative route 

locations. These alternatives were 

evaluated in terms of cost-effectiveness, 

technical feasibility, and environmental 

factors (e.g., soils, topography and 

geology, water resources, air quality, 

biological resources, the acoustic 

environment, recreation, cultural and 

historic resources, visual resources, 

transportation, farmland, land use, 

human health and safety, the 

socioeconomic environment, 

environmental justice, and cumulative 

effects). 

The Final EIS analyzes in detail the 

No Action Alternative and Route 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. See ROD 

Section IV.b. ‘‘Alternatives Not Selected 

and RUS’ Rational’’ for the rationale for 

eliminating the alternatives. The 

resources or environmental factors that 

could be affected by the proposed 

Project were evaluated in detail in the 

Final EIS. These issues are summarized 

in EIS Table ES–2: ‘‘Comparative 

Impacts of Route Alternatives.’’ 

Based on an evaluation of the 

information and impact analyses 

presented in the EIS, including the 

evaluation of all alternatives, and in 

consideration of the Agency’s NEPA 

implementing regulations, 

Environmental Policies and Procedures, 

as amended (7 CFR Part 1794), RUS 

finds that the evaluation of reasonable 

alternatives is consistent with NEPA. 

The Agency has selected the Route 

Alternative 4 as its preferred alternative. 

Because the proposed Project may 

involve action in floodplains or 

wetlands, this Notice also serves as a 

final notice of action in floodplains and 

wetlands (in accordance with Executive 

Orders 11988 and 11990). This Notice 

concludes RUS’s compliance with 

NEPA and the Agency’s ‘‘Environmental 

Policies and Procedures.’’ 

Dated: November 23, 2010. 

Jonathan Adelstein, 

Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30298 Filed 12–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

Agency: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Title: Annual Capital Expenditures 

Survey. 

Form Number(s): ACE–1(S), ACE– 

1(M), ACE–1(L), ACE–2. 

OMB Control Number: 0607–0782. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Burden Hours: 153,300. 

Number of Respondents: 77,250. 

Average Hours Per Response: 1.98 

hours. 

Needs and Uses: A major concern of 

economic policymakers is the adequacy 

of investment in plant and equipment. 

Data on the amount of business 

expenditures for new plant and 

equipment and measures of the stock of 

existing facilities are critical to 

evaluating productivity growth, the 

ability of U.S. business to compete with 

foreign business, changes in industrial 

capacity, and overall economic 

performance. The ACES survey is the 

sole source of detailed comprehensive 

statistics on investment in buildings and 

other structures, machinery, and 

equipment by private nonfarm 

businesses in the United States. 

This request is for a continuation of 

a currently approved collection and will 

cover the 2010 through 2012 ACES 

(conducted in fiscal years 2011 through 

2013). Changes from the previous ACES 

authorization are the elimination of 

detailed capital expenditures by type of 

structure and type of equipment. These 

data, collected every five years, were 

collected in the 2008 ACES and will not 

be collected again until the 2013 ACES. 

The ACES is an integral part of the 

Federal Government’s effort to improve 

the quality and usefulness of National 

economic statistics. Federal agencies, 

including the Census Bureau, use these 

data to improve and supplement 

ongoing statistical programs: 

The Census Bureau uses the data to 

improve the quality of monthly 

economic indicators of investment. The 

Bureau’s Value of New Construction Put 

in Place survey currently uses the ACES 

data to benchmark its industrial 

buildings data. The Bureau of Economic 

Analysis (BEA) uses the data in refining 

and evaluating annual estimates of 

investment in structures and equipment 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

75172 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 231 / Thursday, December 2, 2010 / Notices 

in the national income and product 

accounts, compiling annual inputoutput tables, and computing gross 

domestic product by industry. The 

Federal Reserve Board uses the data to 

improve estimates of investment 

indicators for monetary policy. The 

Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the data 

to improve estimates of capital stocks 

for productivity analysis. 

In addition, industry analysts use the 

data for market analysis, economic 

forecasting, product development, and 

business planning. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit, Not-for-profit Institutions. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

Legal Authority: The Title 13 U.S.C., 

Sections 182, 224, and 225. 

OMB Desk Officer: Brian HarrisKojetin, (202) 395–7314. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Diana Hynek, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of 

Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

dhynek@doc.gov). 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB 

Desk Officer either by fax (202–395– 

7245) or e-mail (bharrisk@omb.eop.gov). 

Dated: November 26, 2010. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30271 Filed 12–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–900] 

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limits for the 

Preliminary Results of the New Shipper 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 2, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Ray, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5403. 

Background 

The antidumping duty order on 

diamond sawblades from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 4, 2009. See Diamond 

Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the 

People’s Republic of China and the 

Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty 

Orders, 74 FR 57145 (November 4, 2009) 

(‘‘Antidumping Duty Order’’). On April 

30, 2010, pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

new shipper review request from 

Pujiang Talent Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘PTDT’’). PTDT’s request was properly 

made on April 30, 2010, as May is the 

semi-annual anniversary of the 

Antidumping Duty Order. On June 28, 

2010, the Department issued a notice of 

initiation of a new shipper review of 

diamond sawblades and parts thereof 

from the PRC covering the period of 

January 24, 2009, through April 31, 

2010. See Diamond Sawblades and 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

75 FR 36632 (June 28, 2010). The 

preliminary results are currently due no 

later than December 14, 2010. 

Statutory Time Limits 

Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act 

provides that the Department will issue 

the preliminary results of a new shipper 

review of an antidumping duty order 

within 180 days after the day on which 

the review was initiated. See also 19 

CFR 351.214(i)(1). The Act further 

provides that the Department may 

extend that 180-day period to 300 days 

if it determines that the case is 

extraordinarily complicated. See also 19 

CFR 351.214(i)(2). 

Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary 

Results 

The Department determines that this 

new shipper review involves 

extraordinarily complicated 

methodological issues such as the 

examination of importer information 

and the evaluation of the bona fide 

nature of PTDT’s sales. In addition, the 

Department needs additional time to 

evaluate the affiliations amongst PTDT 

and other entities. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for these preliminary results by 120 

days, until no later than April 13, 2011. 

The final results continue to be due 90 

days after the publication of the 

preliminary results. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: November 26, 2010. 

Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30291 Filed 12–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–841] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From Brazil: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 16, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, 

and strip (PET film) from Brazil for the 

period November 6, 2008, through 

October 31, 2009. We gave interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

the preliminary results and received no 

comments. We have made no changes to 

Terphane, Inc.’s (Terphane’s) margin for 

the final results of this review. The final 

weighted-average margin is listed below 

in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 2, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Scott or Robert James, 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) 482–2657 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 16, 2010, the Department 

published the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order covering PET 

film from Brazil and invited interested 

parties to comment. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

From Brazil: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 49900 (August 16, 2010) 

(Preliminary Results). This 

administrative review covers one 

respondent, Terphane. The petitioners 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES