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

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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES