Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 8649 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk 

Officer, FAX number (202) 395–7285, or 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov. 

Dated: February 22, 2010. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3885 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

[Docket No.: PTO–P–2010–0001] 

Request for Comments on 

Methodology for Conducting an 

Independent Study of the Burden of 

Patent-Related Paperwork 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) retained ICF 

International (ICF) to perform an 

independent study of the burden of 

patent-related paperwork, beginning 

with a report describing the 

methodologies for performing such a 

study (Methodology Report). ICF has 

now provided the USPTO with its 

Methodology Report, in which ICF 

recommends methodologies for 

addressing various topics about 

estimating the patent-related burdens 

imposed on the public as reflected in 

information collection requests under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA). The USPTO is inviting public 

comment on ICF’s Methodology Report. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent by electronic mail message over 

the Internet addressed to 

pra_study_comments@uspto.gov. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

mail addressed to: Mail Stop 

Comments—Patents, Commissioner for 

Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 

22313–1450, marked to the attention of 

Raul Tamayo. Although comments may 

be submitted by mail, the USPTO 

prefers to receive comments via the 

Internet. 

The written comments will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Commissioner for Patents, 

located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 

600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, 

and will be available via the USPTO 

Internet Web site (address: http:// 

www.uspto.gov). Because comments will 

be made available for public inspection, 

information that is not desired to be 

made public, such as an address or 

phone number, should not be included 

in the comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul 

Tamayo, Legal Advisor, Office of Patent 

Legal Administration, Office of the 

Associate Commissioner for Patent 

Examination Policy, at (571) 272–7728. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: While 

information collection is critical to 

evidence-based decisions and informed 

government operations, unnecessary 

paperwork requirements can impose 

serious burdens on the public, 

especially small entities. The PRA 

requires Federal agencies to minimize 

the burden on the public resulting from 

their information collections, and to 

maximize the practical utility of the 

information collected. 

As part of its continuing effort to 

improve the accuracy and transparency 

of its patent-related PRA burden 

estimates, the USPTO retained ICF to 

perform an independent study having 

the following three overall objectives: 

(1) Develop an independent, publicly 

vetted, objectively based estimate of the 

total cost of paperwork for patent 

applicants; (2) develop 

recommendations for continued 

improvement in the accuracy of burden 

estimates made by the USPTO in the 

future; and (3) identify opportunities to 

reduce applicant burdens. ICF’s 

Methodology Report provides concise 

descriptions of the methodologies it 

recommends for conducting specific 

inter-related analyses for addressing the 

three overall objectives. 

The specific inter-related analyses 

will be performed independently by ICF 

and will provide impartial, fact-based 

results. The approaches described in 

ICF’s Methodology Report for 

performing the analyses were developed 

independently by ICF, and are ICF’s 

recommendations regarding the most 

efficient and effective ways to complete 

the analyses and to meet the overall 

objectives for the study. 

The USPTO is inviting comments 

from the public regarding ICF’s 

Methodology Report. The USPTO 

posted the Methodology Report on its 

Internet Web site (http://www.uspto.gov) 

on February 25, 2010, with a notice 

requesting public comment on the 

Methodology Report and indicating that 

written comments must be received on 

or before April 12, 2010, to receive 

consideration. 

Dated: February 19, 2010. 

David J. Kappos, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3882 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Evaluation of State Coastal 

Management Programs and National 

Estuarine Research Reserves 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management, National Ocean Service, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to evaluate— 

rescheduled site visit and public 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The NOAA Office of Ocean 

and Coastal Resource Management 

(OCRM) announces a rescheduled site 

visit and time for a public meeting 

previously included in an 

announcement of intent to evaluate the 

performance of the Rhode Island Coastal 

Management Program. Notice was 

previously given in the Federal Register 

on Monday, December 7, 2009, of the 

date of the site visit for the evaluation 

of the Rhode Island Coastal 

Management Program and the date, 

local time, and location of the public 

meeting. Notice is hereby given of the 

rescheduled date for the site visit and 

local time of the public meeting during 

the site visit. 

DATE AND TIME: The Rhode Island 

Coastal Management Program 

evaluation site visit will be held 

February 22–26, 2010. One public 

meeting will be held during the week. 

The public meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, February 24, 2010, at 6 

p.m. in Conference Room A, Department 

of Administration, One Capitol Hill, 

Providence, Rhode Island. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Barba, Chief, National Policy and 

Evaluation Division, Office of Ocean 

and Coastal Resource Management, 

NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 

10th Floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 

20910, (301) 563–1182. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
8650 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 

Dated: February 16, 2010. 

Donna Wieting, 

Acting Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management, National Ocean 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3793 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–274–804) 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 9, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod from 

Trinidad and Tobago. See Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 

Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 57648 

(November 9, 2009) (Preliminary 

Results). We gave interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

Preliminary Results, and received no 

comments. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis McClure or Jolanta Lawska, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5973 or (202) 482– 

8362, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 9, 2009, the Department 

published the preliminary results of 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order covering carbon 

and certain alloy steel wire rod from 

Trinidad and Tobago. See Preliminary 

Results. The parties subject to this 

review are ArcelorMittal Point Lisas 

Limited, and its affiliate ArcelorMittal 

International America LLC (collectively, 

AMPL). The petitioners in this 

proceeding are ISG Georgetown Inc., 

Nucor Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone 

Consolidated Industries Inc., and Rocky 

Mountain Steel Mills. 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department stated that interested parties 

were to submit case briefs within 30 

days of publication of the Preliminary 

Results and rebuttal briefs within five 

days of the due date for filing case 

briefs. See Preliminary Results at 57652. 

No interested party submitted a case or 

rebuttal brief. We have made no changes 

since the Preliminary Results were 

published. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is October 

1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is certain hot–rolled products of carbon 

steel and alloy steel, in coils, of 

approximately round cross section, 5.00 

mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in 

solid cross–sectional diameter. 

Specifically excluded are steel products 

possessing the above–noted physical 

characteristics and meeting the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) definitions for 

(a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high 

nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and 

(e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. 

Also excluded are (f) free machining 

steel products (i.e., products that 

contain by weight one or more of the 

following elements: 0.03 percent or 

more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of 

bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, 

more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, 

more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or 

more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). 

Also excluded from the scope are 

1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod 

and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire 

rod. Grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is 

defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord 

quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or 

more but not more than 6.0 mm in 

cross–sectional diameter; (ii) with an 

average partial decarburization of no 

more than 70 microns in depth 

(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 

having no non–deformable inclusions 

greater than 20 microns and no 

deformable inclusions greater than 35 

microns; (iv) having a carbon 

segregation per heat average of 3.0 or 

better using European Method NFA 04– 

114; (v) having a surface quality with no 

surface defects of a length greater than 

0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to 

a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or 

fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) 

containing by weight the following 

elements in the proportions shown: (1) 

0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less 

than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 

0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, 

of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 

percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not 

more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 

of copper, nickel and chromium. 

Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is 

defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead 

quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or 

more but not more than 7.0 mm in 

cross–sectional diameter; (ii) with an 

average partial decarburization of no 

more than 70 microns in depth 

(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 

having no non–deformable inclusions 

greater than 20 microns and no 

deformable inclusions greater than 35 

microns; (iv) having a carbon 

segregation per heat average of 3.0 or 

better using European Method NFA 04– 

114; (v) having a surface quality with no 

surface defects of a length greater than 

0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to 

a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 

or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) 

containing by weight the following 

elements in the proportions shown: (1) 

0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less 

than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, 

(3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 

aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 

0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) 

either not more than 0.15 percent, in the 

aggregate, of copper, nickel and 

chromium (if chromium is not 

specified), or not more than 0.10 percent 

in the aggregate of copper and nickel 

and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 

percent (if chromium is specified). 

For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord 

quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire 

bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will 

be considered to be deformable if its 

ratio of length (measured along the axis 

– that is, the direction of rolling – of the 

rod) over thickness (measured on the 

same inclusion in a direction 

perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is 

equal to or greater than three. The size 

of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 

microns and 35 microns limitations is 

the measurement of the largest 

dimension observed on a longitudinal 

section measured in a direction 

perpendicular to the axis of the rod. 

This measurement methodology applies 

only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 

tire cord quality wire rod and certain 

grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod 

that are entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

July 24, 2003. 

The designation of the products as 

‘‘tire cord quality’’ or ‘‘tire bead quality’’ 

indicates the acceptability of the 

product for use in the production of tire 

cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other 

rubber reinforcement applications such 

as hose wire. These quality designations 

are presumed to indicate that these 

products are being used in tire cord, tire 

bead, and other rubber reinforcement 

applications, and such merchandise 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES