### 22551 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Notices

comment. The time for individual oral comments may be limited.

Gerald Lawrence, Jr., Designated Federal Officer, Davy Crockett National Forest RAC.
[FR Doc. 2010–9809 Filed 4–28–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–11–M**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**Agricultural Marketing Service**

**[Doc. No. AMS–FV–09–0052; FV–09–326]**

**United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Blueberries** 

**AGENCY :**  Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

**ACTION :**  Notice; withdrawal.

**SUMMARY :**  The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is withdrawing a notice soliciting comments on its proposed revision to the United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Blueberries. After considering the comments received regarding the proposed revision and the withdrawal of the petition requesting revisions, the agency has decided not to proceed with this action.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: April 29, 2010.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Myron Betts, Inspection and Standardization Section, Processed Products Branch (PPB), Fruit and Vegetable Programs (FV), AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 0709, South Building; STOP 0247, Washington, DC 20250; Telephone: (202) 720–5021 or fax (202) 720–9906; or e-mail: Myron.Betts@ams.usda.gov. The United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Blueberries are available by accessing the AMS Web site on the Internet at http://www.ams.usda.gov/ processedinspection. Background

On August 22, 2008, AMS received a petition from the North American Blueberry Council (NABC), requesting revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Blueberries. These standards are issued under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621–1627).

The petitioner requested the USDA to revise the terminology used for the product description of frozen blueberries. On December 22, 2008, prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revising an official grade standard, AMS published a notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 78285) soliciting comments on the petition to revise the U.S. Standards for Grades of Frozen Blueberries. AMS received two comments: one from the USDA, Agricultural Research Service and the other from the American Frozen Food Institute. Both commenters stated that the proposal should include all hybrids and cultivars of the appropriate species.

Given the absence of product samples and additional information on the berries that were the subject of its petition, NABC withdrew its request. Accordingly, after considering the comments received regarding the proposed revision and the withdrawal of the petition requesting revisions; AMS has decided not to proceed further with the proposed revision to the U.S. Standards for Grades of Frozen Blueberries. The notice published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2008 (73 FR 87285) is hereby withdrawn.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. Dated: April 22, 2010. David R. Shipman, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–9869 Filed 4–28–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–02–M**

**COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS**

**Continuation of Hearing on the Department of Justice’s Actions**  **Related to the New Black Panther Party Litigation and its Enforcement of**  **Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act**

**AGENCY :**  United States Commission on Civil Rights.

**ACTION :**  Notice of hearing.

**DATE AND TIME :**  Friday, May 14, 2010; 9:30 a.m. EDT.

**PLACE :**  U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425.

**SUMMARY :**  The Commission’s Hearing on the Department of Justice’s Actions Related to the New Black Panther Party Litigation and its Enforcement of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, conducted on April 23, 2010 and noticed in the March 18, 2010 Federal Register at 75 FR 13076, was continued until May 14, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. EDT in Washington, DC at the Commission’s offices located at 624 Ninth Street, NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425, and will continue thereafter until completed. An executive session not open to the public may be convened at any appropriate time before or during the hearing.

Notice of these hearings was previously published at 75 FR 13076 pursuant to the Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 1975a and 45 CFR 702.3. The purpose of this hearing is to collect information within the jurisdiction of the Commission, under 42 U.S.C. 1975a, related particularly to the Department of Justice’s actions in the New Black Panther Party Litigation and Enforcement of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.

The Commission is authorized to hold hearings and to issue subpoenas for the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses pursuant to 45 CFR 701.2. The Commission is an independent bipartisan, fact finding agency authorized to study, collect, and disseminate information, and to appraise the laws and policies of the Federal Government, and to study and collect information with respect to discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. The Commission has broad authority to investigate allegations of voting irregularities even when alleged abuses do not involve discrimination.

**CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER**
**INFORMATION :**  Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376– 8591. TDD: (202) 376–8116.

Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at least seven days prior to the scheduled date of the hearing at 202–376–8105. TDD: (202)
376–8116.

Dated: April 26, 2010. David Blackwood,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010–9983 Filed 4–28–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6335–01–P**

**COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS**

**Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the District of Columbia Advisory**  **Committee**

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that an orientation and planning meeting of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee will convene at 11 a.m. on Thursday, May 13, 2010, at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Conference Room 540, Washington, DC 20425. The purpose of the orientation meeting is to review the rules of operation for the Advisory Committee.


### 22552 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Notices

The purpose of the planning meeting is to plan future activities.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday June 14, 2010. The address is the Eastern Regional Office, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 740, Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who desire additional information should contact the Eastern Regional Office at 202–376–7533 or by e-mail to: ero@usccr.gov.

Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission’s Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address.

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

Dated in Washington, DC, 26 April, 2010. Peter Minarik, Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2010–9958 Filed 4–28–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6335–01–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE**

**International Trade Administration**

**[A–489–807]**

**Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Amended**  **Final Results Pursuant to Court Decisions** 

**AGENCY :**  Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

**SUMMARY :**  In June and November 2009 and January 2010, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained three final remand redeterminations made by the Department of Commerce (the Department) in the 2003–2004 administrative review of certain steel concrete of reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey. See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States

, Court No. 05–00613, Slip Op. 09–55 (June 15, 2009) ( Habas I ); Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States , Court No. 05–00613, Slip Op. 09–133 (Nov. 23, 2009) ( Habas II

); and 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) ( ICDAS). Because all litigation for this administrative review has now concluded, the Department is issuing its amended final results in accordance with the CIT’s decisions.

**EFFECTIVE DATE :**  April 29, 2010.

**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. Background

In accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on November 8, 2005, the Department published its notice of final results in the antidumping duty administrative review of rebar from Turkey for 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).

In the Final Results the Department followed its normal practice of using POR weighted–average costs in its margin calculation for all companies, instead of quarterly–average costs as requested by Habas and ICDAS. The Department also based the U.S. date of sale for Habas on the earlier of shipment date or invoice date and the U.S. date of sale for ICDAS on contract date.

Subsequent to the final results, Habas and ICDAS contested the Department’s decision to use POR costs, Habas contested the Department’s decision to use invoice date as its U.S. date of sale, and the domestic industry, among other arguments, challenged the Department’s decision to use invoice date as ICDAS’s date of sale.

On November 18, 2005, the Department requested a voluntary remand in order to reconsider the date– of-sale issue for ICDAS. 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. See Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company v. United States , Court No. 05–00616 (Dec. 15, 2005). On January 31, 2006, the Department issued its final results of redetermination, in which it found that the invoice date was the appropriate date of sale for ICDAS’s U.S. sales. See Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company v. United States; Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Jan. 31, 2006).

On November 15, 2007, the CIT remanded for reconsideration Habas’ date of sale and quarterly cost issues. See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States , Court No. 05–00613, Slip Op. 07–167 (Nov. 15, 2007). On March 3, 2008, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s November 15, 2007, remand order, finding that the contract date was the more appropriate date of sale and providing additional justification for relying on POR costs. See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States; Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Mar. 3, 2008).

On March 24, 2009, the CIT again remanded the ICDAS date of sale issue to the Department, requiring that the Department provide a more in–depth analysis as to the reason the use of invoice date was appropriate. The CIT also remanded two additional issues, at the Department’s request, related to the calculation of ICDAS’s cost of production (COP) and the universe of U.S. sales examined in the review. See Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company, v. United States , Court No. 05–00616, Slip Op. 09–20 (March 24, 2009).

On June 15, 2009, the CIT affirmed the Department’s determination to use contract date as the date of sale for Habas’ U.S. sales. See Habas I . However, the CIT also determined that the Department’s analysis of Habas’ COP ( i.e. , quarterly costs vs. annual weighted–average costs) in the Final Results was not supported by substantial evidence on the record, and the court remanded this issue to the Department once again for additional reconsideration. Id

.

On September 8, 2009, and November 6, 2009, respectively, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s June 15, 2009, and March 24, 2009, rulings. See Habas Sinai Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, Final Results of Redetermination