This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

7561 

Vol. 75, No. 34 

Monday, February 22, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Civil Rights 

Notice of Request for Approval of a 

New Information Collection 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights, United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice 

announces the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights’ intention to 

request approval for a new information 

collection for the USDA Independent 

Assessment of the Delivery of Technical 

and Financial Assistance. 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by April 23, 2010 to be assured 

of consideration. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: 

Contact Stacy Porto, Esq., Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., Mail Stop 

0115, Washington, DC 20250; Fax: (202) 

690–1782; E-mail: 

stacy.porto@osec.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: USDA Independent Assessment 

of the Delivery of Technical and 

Financial Assistance. 

OMB Number: 0503–New. 

Expiration Date of Approval: Three 

years from approval date. 

Type of Request: New information 

collection. 

Abstract: USDA is interested in 

conducting an independent assessment 

of the delivery of programs of technical 

and financial assistance by certain 

agencies noted above. The project will 

examine USDA’s program delivery at 

the State and local levels. The purpose 

of this project is to assess the 

effectiveness of USDA’s programs in 

reaching America’s diverse population 

in a non-discriminatory manner. This 

study will identify barriers to equal and 

fair access for USDA customers and 

provide recommendations to assist the 

Secretary of Agriculture in transforming 

USDA into a model organization. 

As part of this assessment of the laws, 

regulations, policies, practices, and 

results achieved in administering key 

programs administered by four entities 

within USDA [the Farm Service Agency 

(FSA), the Rural Development (RD) 

mission area, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), and the 

Risk Management Agency (RMA)], 

actual program delivery will be 

reviewed. The activities to be 

undertaken subject to this notice 

include: 

• Conducting multi-modal (e.g. paper, 

Web, and telephone) survey of 

approximately 21,400 USDA customers 

and potential customers. 

• Conducting in-depth in-person 

interviews with a sub-sample of up to 

100 USDA customers. 

• Conducting an impact analysis. 

These activities are described below: 

• Multi-modal Survey. Surveys will 

be administered to potential customers 

and customers who applied for FSA, 

RD, NRCS, or RMA financial or 

technical programs, including those for 

commodities, credit, conservation, 

disaster relief, and any providing for 

grants or loans, (as authorized by 

Congress in 84 Counties across 14 

States. A sample of 21,400 customers 

including African American, Hispanic, 

American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian 

Pacific Islanders, persons with 

disabilities, or women farm and ranch 

operators will be drawn from USDA 

databases. 

• In-depth Interviews. After the 

surveys are completed, a sub-sample 

will be drawn from among the 

customers who completed the surveys 

and up to 100 in-depth interviews will 

be conducted to delve deeper into the 

experiences of the customers about the 

process of application and services they 

received. 

• Impact Analysis. Actual practices, 

and results, including those at USDA 

Headquarters, agency Headquarters, 

State/Regional/Local USDA and State/ 

County areas will be analyzed. The use 

of statistical data (such as the percent of 

low-resource farmers participating in a 

specific loan program); the findings and 

conclusions of internal and external 

reports on USDA civil rights; other 

sources, such as the existing minority/ 

female farmer lawsuits, and advocacy 

organizations will be determined under 

this task. 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average twenty (20) 

minutes per Self Administered Survey 

(paper or Web)/Telephone Survey 

response and two (2) hours per in-depth 

interview response. See Table 1 below. 

Type of Respondents: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

Out of 21,400 USDA customers and 

potential customers to be surveyed, 

15,100 respondents, (15,000 

respondents for the Self Administered 

Survey/Telephone Survey and 100 

respondents for the in-depth interview) 

are expected to respond. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

15,100. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 5,200 hours. 

Data collection activity Respondents 

Annual 

frequency per 

response 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

burden per 

respondent 

(minutes) 

Total burden 

estimate 

(hours) 

Self administered survey/Telephone 

survey.

USDA customers and potential customers.1 15,000 20 5,000 

In depth interviews ............................ USDA customers and potential customers.1 100 120 200 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
7562 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2010 / Notices 

Data collection activity Respondents 

Annual 

frequency per 

response 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

burden per 

respondent 

(minutes) 

Total burden 

estimate 

(hours) 

Total ........................................... ........................................................... ........................ 15,100 ........................ 5,200 

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

the use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

All comments received will be available 

for public inspection during regular 

business hours at the same address. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for the Office of Management and 

Budget approval. All comments will 

become a matter of public record. 

Dated: February 8, 2010. 

Joe Leonard, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, United 

States Department of Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3359 Filed 2–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–489–807] 

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 

Bars From Turkey: Notice of Court 

Decision Not in Harmony With Final 

Results of Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 19, 2010, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of 

Commerce’s (the Department’s) results 

of redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s 

remand order in Nucor Corporation, 

Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and 

Commercial Metals Company v. United 

States and Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve 

Ulasim Sanayi A.S., Court No. 05– 

00616, Slip Op. 10–6 (Jan. 19, 2010). See 

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 

Remand, dated November 6, 2009 

(found at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands). 

Consistent with the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. 

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 

1990) (Timken), the Department is 

notifying the public that the final 

judgment in this case is not in harmony 

with the Department’s final results of 

the administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain steel 

concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from 

Turkey covering the period of review 

(POR) of April 1, 2003, through March 

31, 2004. See Certain Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final 

Results, Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review in Part, and 

Determination To Revoke in Part, 70 FR 

67665 (Nov. 8, 2005) (Final Results). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration—International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3874. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 8, 2005, the Department 

published the final results of the 

administrative review. See Final 

Results. In the final results, the 

Department: (1) Reversed its 

preliminary decision with respect to the 

U.S. date of sale for ICDAS and used the 

contract date as the date of sale for 

ICDAS’s U.S. sales, rather than the 

invoice date, because it determined that 

the material terms of sale were 

established at the contract date; (2) 

computed ICDAS’s cost of production 

(COP) using annual-average, rather than 

quarterly, costs; and (3) defined the 

universe of U.S. sales transactions 

examined during the administrative 

review to rely on the date that subject 

merchandise entered the customs 

territory of the United States, rather 

than the date that subject merchandise 

was sold here. 

On November 18, 2005, the 

Department requested a voluntary 

remand in order to reconsider the dateof-sale issue. On December 15, 2005, the 

CIT granted the Department’s request to 

reconsider whether, based upon the 

record evidence, the Department 

reasonably applied its date-of-sale 

methodology to the facts at issue. 

On January 31, 2006, the Department 

issued its final results of 

redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s 

December 15, 2005, ruling. In its 

remand results, the Department 

determined that the invoice date is the 

appropriate date of sale for ICDAS’s U.S. 

sales in the 2003–2004 administrative 

review. 

On March 24, 2009, the CIT again 

remanded this issue to the Department, 

requiring that the Department provide a 

more in-depth analysis as to why the 

use of invoice date as U.S. date of sale 

was appropriate. In addition, the CIT 

remanded two additional issues, at the 

Department’s request, related to the 

calculation of ICDAS’s COP and an 

explanation for the methodology used to 

determine the universe of U.S. sales 

examined in the review. 

On November 6, 2009, the Department 

issued its final results of 

redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s 

March 24, 2009, ruling. In its remand 

redetermination the Department 

explained that, in accordance with the 

CIT’s instructions, it reconsidered the 

issues contained in the CIT’s March 24, 

2009, ruling and determined that it was 

appropriate to: (1) Base ICDAS’s 

universe of sales on entry date; (2) use 

invoice date as the date of sale for 

ICDAS’s U.S. sales; and (3) use ICDAS’s 

quarterly-average costs in its margin 

calculations. On January 19, 2010, the 

CIT affirmed the Department’s 

November 6, 2009, remand 

redetermination. 

The Department’s redetermination 

resulted in changes to the Final Results 

weighted-average margin for ICDAS 

from 0.16 percent to 0.70 percent. 

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 

341, the CAFC held that, pursuant to 

section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), the 

Department must publish a notice of a 

court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ 

with a Department determination and 

must suspend liquidation of entries 

pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. 

The CIT’s decision on January 19, 

2010, constitutes a final decision of that 

Court that is not in harmony with the 

Department’s Final Results. 

Accordingly, this notice is published in 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES