Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 103 / Friday, May 28, 2010 / Notices 29969 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

become a matter of public record. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522. 

Dated: May 24, 2010. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12833 Filed 5–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Information Collection; Volunteer 

Application for Natural Resources 

Agencies 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Forest Service is seeking comments 

from all interested individuals and 

organizations on the extension with 

revision of a currently approved 

information collection entitled, 

Volunteer Application for Natural 

Resources Agencies. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing on or before July 27, 2010 to be 

assured of consideration. Comments 

received after that date will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this 

notice should be addressed to Merlene 

Mazyck, Youth & Volunteer Programs, 

Forest Service, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Mailstop 

1136, Washington, DC 20250–1136. 

Comments also may be submitted via 

e-mail to: mmazyck@fs.fed.us. 

The public may inspect comments 

received at Forest Service, USDA, 1621 

N. Kent Street, Rosslyn Plaza East, 

Room 1010, Arlington, VA during 

normal business hours. Visitors are 

encouraged to call ahead to 703–605– 

4831 to facilitate entry to the building. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Merlene Mazyck, Youth & Volunteer 

Programs, 202–205–0650. Individuals 

who use telecommunication devices for 

the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339, 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Standard time, Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Volunteer Application for 

Natural Resources Agencies. 

OMB Number: 0596–0080. 

Expiration Date of Approval: 

10/31/2010. 

Type of Request: Extension with 

Revision. 

Abstract: The collected information is 

needed by participating natural 

resources agencies to manage agency 

volunteer programs. Information is 

collected from potential and selected 

volunteers of all ages. Those under the 

age of 18 years must have written 

consent from a parent or guardian. 

Participating Agencies 

The volunteer programs of the 

following natural resource agencies are 

included: 

Department of Agriculture: U.S. 

Forest Service and Natural Resources 

Conservation Service; 

Department of the Interior: National 

Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of 

Reclamation, and U.S. Geological 

Survey; 

Department of Defense: U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers; 

Department of Commerce: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

Forms 

OF–301 Volunteer Application: 

Individuals interested in volunteering 

may access the National Federal 

volunteer opportunities Web site 

(http://www.volunteer.gov/gov/ 

index.cfm), individual agency Web 

sites, and/or contact agencies to request 

a Volunteer Application (OF–301). 

Applicants provide name, address, 

telephone number, age, preferred work 

categories, available dates, preferred 

location, description of physical 

limitations, and lodging preferences. 

Information collected using this form 

assists agency volunteer coordinators 

and other personnel in matching 

volunteers with agency opportunities 

appropriate for an applicant’s skills and 

physical condition and availability. 

Signature of a parent or guardian is 

mandatory for applicants under 18 years 

of age. 

OF–301A Volunteer Agreement: This 

form is used by participating resource 

agencies to document agreements for 

volunteer services between a Federal 

agency and individual or group 

volunteers, including international 

volunteers. Signature of parent or 

guardian is mandatory for applicants 

under 18 years of age. 

Forms unique to participating 

agencies: The forms listed below gather 

information necessary to reimburse 

volunteers for approved, miscellaneous 

expenses associated with volunteer 

assignments and record service time of 

volunteers. 

U.S. Forest Service: FS–6500–299, 

Volunteers Request for Reimbursement. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

Volunteer Time Sheet; SF–1164, Claim 

for Miscellaneous Expenses. 

U.S. Geological Survey: Form 9–2080, 

USGS Individual Volunteer Agreement. 

National Park Service: Form 10–67, 

Volunteer Claim for Reimbursement. 

Estimate of Annual Burden: 15 

minutes. 

Type of Respondents: Individuals. 

Estimated Annual Number of 

Respondents: 400,000. 

Estimated Annual Number of 

Responses per Respondent: 5. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 500,000 hours. 

Comment is invited: 

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether 

this collection of information is 

necessary for the stated purposes and 

the proper performance of the functions 

of the Agency, including whether the 

information will have practical or 

scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the 

Agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

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 

respondents, including the use of 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

All comments received in response to 

this notice, including names and 

addresses when provided, will be a 

matter of public record. Comments will 

be summarized and included in the 

submission request toward Office of 

Management and Budget approval. 

Dated: May 24, 2010. 

William E. Timko, 

Acting Deputy Chief, National Forest System. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12945 Filed 5–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0047] 

Environmental Impact Statement; 

Determination of Nonregulated Status 

of Sugar Beet Genetically Engineered 

for Tolerance to the Herbicide 

Glyphosate 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement and 

proposed scope of study. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 

that the Animal and Plant Health 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
29970 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 103 / Friday, May 28, 2010 / Notices 

Inspection Service plans to prepare an 

environmental impact statement in 

connection with a court-mandated 

evaluation of the potential impacts on 

the human environment associated with 

the Agency’s determination of 

nonregulated status for a Monsanto/ 

KWS SAAT AG sugar beet line, 

designated as event H7–1. This notice 

identifies the environmental and 

interrelated economic issues raised by 

the Court and other potential issues that 

we may include in the environmental 

impact statement and requests public 

comment to further delineate the scope 

of the issues and reasonable 

alternatives. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before June 28, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS– 

2010–0047 to submit or view public 

comments and to view supporting and 

related materials available 

electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send one copy of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS–2010–0047, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238. Please state that your 

comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– 

2010–0047. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

room is located in room 1141 of the 

USDA South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Andrea Huberty, Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 734–0485. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

regulations in 7 CFR part 340, 

‘‘Introduction of Organisms and 

Products Altered or Produced Through 

Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant 

Pests or Which There Is Reason to 

Believe Are Plant Pests,’’ regulate, 

among other things, the introduction 

(importation, interstate movement, or 

release into the environment) of 

organisms and products altered or 

produced through genetic engineering 

that are plant pests or that there is 

reason to believe are plant pests. Such 

genetically engineered organisms and 

products are considered ‘‘regulated 

articles.’’ The regulations in § 340.6(a) 

provide that any person may submit a 

petition to the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a 

determination that an article should not 

be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. 

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 

describe the form that a petition for a 

determination of nonregulated status 

must take and the information that must 

be included in the petition. 

On October 19, 2004, APHIS 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register (69 FR 61466–61467, Docket 

No. 04–075–1) announcing receipt of a 

petition from Monsanto/KWS SAAT AG 

requesting a determination of 

nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 

340 for sugar beet (Beta vulgaris ssp. 

vulgaris) designated as event H7–1, 

which has been genetically engineered 

for tolerance to the herbicide 

glyphosate. The petition stated that this 

article should not be regulated by 

APHIS because it does not present a 

plant pest risk. APHIS also announced 

in that notice the availability of a draft 

environmental assessment (EA) for the 

proposed determination of nonregulated 

status. Following review of public 

comments and completion of the EA, we 

published another notice in the Federal 

Register on March 17, 2005 (70 FR 

13007–13008, Docket No. 04–075–2), 

advising the public of our 

determination, effective March 4, 2005, 

that the Monsanto/KWS SAAT AG sugar 

beet event H7–1 was no longer 

considered a regulated article under 

APHIS regulations in 7 CFR part 340. 

On September 21, 2009, the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District 

of California issued a ruling in a lawsuit 

filed by two organic seed groups and 

two nonprofit organizations challenging 

our decision to deregulate sugar beet 

event H7–1 (referred to in the lawsuit as 

Roundup Ready® sugar beet), pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Administrative 

Procedure Act, and the Plant Protection 

Act. Under the provisions of NEPA, 

agencies must examine the potential 

environmental impacts of proposed 

Federal actions. The Court ruled that 

APHIS’ EA failed to consider certain 

environmental and interrelated 

economic impacts. As a result, the Court 

stated that APHIS is required to prepare 

an environmental impact statement 

(EIS). Accordingly, APHIS plans to 

prepare an EIS. In doing so, APHIS will 

utilize as appropriate any 

environmental analysis provided by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and other data or analysis prepared by 

other agencies. APHIS has requested 

that EPA serve as a cooperating agency. 

This notice identifies potential issues 

and reasonable alternatives that we are 

considering addressing, and requests 

public comment on the inclusion of 

these or related issues and alternatives 

in the EIS. 

Management practices for organic 

sugar beet, conventional sugar beet, and 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet. What are 

the management practices and 

associated costs of establishing, 

growing, harvesting, and marketing 

sugar beet, including selling prices and 

premiums for the various types of sugar 

beet? What crop rotation regimes are 

used with sugar beet? 

Production levels of organic and 

conventional sugar beet, Swiss chard, 

and table beet by region, State, and 

county. What is the acreage of 

cultivated, volunteer, or feral sugar 

beet? What is the acreage of Swiss chard 

and table beet? Which regions of the 

country may be affected as a result of a 

determination of nonregulated status for 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? What are 

the potential impacts on adjacent, 

nonagricultural lands such as natural 

areas, forested lands, or transportation 

routes that may result from the use of 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? 

Potential impacts of glyphosatetolerant sugar beet cultivation on 

livestock production systems. What are 

the potential impacts of glyphosatetolerant sugar beet cultivation on 

conventional and organic livestock 

production systems? 

Potential impacts on food and feed. 

Does glyphosate affect the 

socioeconomic value of food or feed or 

its nutritional quality? What are the 

impacts, if any, on food or feed 

socioeconomic value or its nutritional 

quality from the use of glyphosate? 

Differences in weediness traits of 

conventional sugar beet versus 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet. What are 

the differences, if any, in weediness 

traits of conventional sugar beet versus 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet under 

managed crop production systems, as 

well as in unmanaged ecosystems? 

Occurrence of common and serious 

weeds found in organic sugar beet 

systems, in conventional sugar beet 

systems, and in glyphosate-tolerant 

sugar beet systems. What are the 

impacts of weeds, herbicide-tolerant 

weeds, weed management practices, and 

unmet weed management needs for 

organic and conventional sugar beet 

cultivation? How may the weed impacts 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 103 / Friday, May 28, 2010 / Notices 29971 

change with the use of glyphosatetolerant sugar beet? 

Management practices for controlling 

weeds in organic sugar beet systems, in 

conventional sugar beet systems, and in 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet systems. 

What are the potential changes in crop 

rotation practices and weed 

management practices for control of 

volunteer sugar beet or herbicidetolerant weeds in rotational crops that 

may occur with the use of glyphosatetolerant sugar beet? What are the 

potential effects on sugar beet stand 

termination and renovation practices 

that may occur with the use of 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? 

Cumulative impact on the 

development of glyphosate-resistant 

weeds. What glyphosate-resistant weeds 

have been identified and what is their 

occurrence in crops and in non-crop 

ecosystems? How would the addition of 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet impact 

the occurrence of glyphosate-resistant 

weeds in sugar beet, in other crops, and 

in the environment? Which are the most 

likely weeds, if any, to gain glyphosate 

resistance and why would they gain 

such resistance with the use of 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? What are 

the current and potentially effective 

strategies for management of glyphosatetolerant or other herbicide-tolerant 

weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet 

stands or in subsequent crops? What are 

the potential changes that may occur in 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet as to 

susceptibility or tolerance to other 

herbicides? 

Current or prospective herbicidetolerant weed mitigation options. What 

are the potential impacts of current or 

prospective herbicide-tolerant weed 

mitigation options, including those 

addressed by the EPA-approved label 

for glyphosate herbicides? 

Potential for gene flow from 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet to other 

Beta species, including gene flow 

between seed fields, root crops, and 

feral plants. To what extent will 

deregulation change hybridization 

between cultivated and feral sugar beet, 

sugar beet introgression or 

establishment outside of cultivated 

lands, and sugar beet persistence or 

weediness in situations where it is 

unwanted, unintended, or unexpected? 

What are the potential impacts 

associated with feral glyphosate-tolerant 

sugar beet plants? Will the removal of 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet, in 

situations where it is unwanted, 

unintended, or unexpected, result in 

adverse impacts? In such situations, 

how will glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet 

be controlled or managed differently 

from other unwanted, unintended, or 

unexpected sugar beet? 

Economic and social impacts on 

organic and conventional sugar beet, 

Swiss chard, and table beet farmers. 

What are the economics of growing 

organic sugar beet, conventional sugar 

beet, or glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet as 

well as the economics of growing 

organic or conventional Swiss chard 

and table beet? What are the potential 

impacts of the presence of glyphosatetolerant sugar beet caused by pollen 

movement or seed admixtures? What are 

the potential impacts of commingling 

sugar beet seed with glyphosate-tolerant 

sugar beet seed? What are the potential 

changes in the economics of growing 

and marketing organic and conventional 

sugar beet that may occur with the 

growing of glyphosate-tolerant sugar 

beet? What are the potential changes in 

production levels of other crops that 

may occur with the growing of 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? Will the 

cultivation of glyphosate-tolerant sugar 

beet result in more or fewer acres of 

other crops? What are the potential 

changes in growing practices, 

management practices, and crop 

rotational practices in the production of 

sugar beet seed for planting purposes 

that may occur with the use of 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? What are 

the potential changes in the choice of 

seeds available for organic and 

conventional sugar beet farmers that 

may occur with the use of glyphosatetolerant sugar beet? 

Cumulative impact of potential 

increased glyphosate usage with the 

cultivation of glyphosate-tolerant crops. 

What are the past, present, and future 

impacts of glyphosate usage on soil 

quality, water quality, air quality, weed 

populations, crop rotations, soil 

microorganisms, diseases, insects, soil 

fertility, food or feed quality, crop 

acreages, and crop yields as a result of 

the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant 

crops? Does the level of glyphosate 

tolerance within glyphosate-tolerant 

sugar beet plants have an impact on the 

amount of glyphosate applied on the 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet crop on a 

routine basis? 

Impacts on threatened or endangered 

species. What are the potential impacts 

of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet 

cultivation on listed threatened or 

endangered species, or on species 

proposed for listing? What are the 

potential impacts of glyphosate use on 

listed threatened or endangered species 

or species proposed for listing, 

including glyphosate used on 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? What 

impacts does the addition of glyphosate 

tolerance in sugar beet cultivation have 

on threatened and endangered species 

as a result of displacing other 

herbicides? 

Potential health impacts. What are the 

potential health impacts to farmers or 

others who would be exposed to 

glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet? 

Can any potential negative 

environmental impacts of the action be 

mitigated and what is the likelihood 

that such mitigation measures will be 

successfully implemented and effective? 

What is the likely effectiveness of the 

stewardship measures, outlined in the 

petition, which are designed to reduce 

inadvertent gene flow to negligible 

levels as well as to monitor and 

minimize the potential development of 

glyphosate-tolerant weeds? Are there 

reasonable alternative stewardship or 

monitoring measures that may avoid or 

minimize reasonably foreseeable 

environmental impacts of a deregulation 

decision? 

Impacts of the mitigation measures on 

coexistence with organic and 

conventional sugar beet production and 

on export markets. What are the 

potential impacts of mitigation 

measures on coexistence with organic 

and conventional sugar beet production 

and on export markets? Are there 

reasonable alternative measures that 

may avoid or minimize reasonably 

foreseeable impacts on organic and 

conventional sugar beet production and 

on export markets that may be 

associated with a deregulation decision? 

Consideration of reasonable 

alternatives. The EIS will consider a 

range of reasonable alternatives. These 

could include continued regulation of 

Roundup Ready® sugar beets, 

deregulating Roundup Ready® sugar 

beets, deregulating Roundup Ready® 

sugar beets in part with geographic 

restrictions, or deregulating Roundup 

Ready® sugar beets in part with 

required separation distances from 

sexually compatible crops. Comments 

that identify other reasonable 

alternatives that should be examined in 

the EIS would be especially helpful. 

Sugar beet growth, crop management, 

and crop utilization may vary 

considerably by geographic region, and 

therefore, when providing comments on 

a topic or issue, please provide relevant 

information on the specific locality or 

region in question. Additionally, we 

invite the participation of any affected 

Federal, State, or local agencies or 

Tribes. 

All comments on this notice will be 

carefully considered in developing the 

final scope of the EIS. Upon completion 

of the draft EIS, a notice announcing its 

availability and an invitation to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
29972 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 103 / Friday, May 28, 2010 / Notices 

comment on it will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of 

May 2010. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12997 Filed 5–26–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Kenai Peninsula-Anchorage Borough 

Resource Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Kenai PeninsulaAnchorage Borough Resource Advisory 

Committee will convene for their first 

formal meeting in Portage Valley, 

Alaska, for the purpose of establishing 

the Committee through the development 

of bylaws, a chairperson, and a future 

meeting schedule, under the provisions 

of Title II of the Secure Rural Schools 

and Community Self-Determination Act 

of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–343). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Saturday, June 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place 

at the Begich Boggs Visitor’s Center, 800 

Portage Lake Loop, Portage, AK 99587. 

Send written comments to Kenai 

Peninsula-Anchorage Borough Resource 

Advisory Committee, c/o USDA Forest 

Service, P.O. Box 390, Seward, AK 

99664 or electronically to 

slatimer@fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Travis Moseley, Designated Federal 

Official, c/o USDA Forest Service, P.O. 

Box 390, Seward, AK 99664, telephone 

(907) 288–7730. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

agenda will include background on the 

provisions of Title II of the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110– 

343) and an overview of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA). In 

addition, the agenda will include time 

for the Committee to develop and adopt 

bylaws, a chairperson, and a future 

meeting schedule to discuss project 

proposals. 

All Resource Advisory Committee 

Meetings are open to the public. The 

public input and comment forum will 

take place in the afternoon of June 12, 

2010. Interested citizens are encouraged 

to attend. 

Dated: May 13, 2010. 

Travis Moseley, 

District Ranger. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12714 Filed 5–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION 

Notice of Meeting 

May 10, 2010. 

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. 

Arctic Research Commission will hold 

its 93rd meeting in Washington, DC, on 

June 2–3, 2010. The business session, 

open to the public, will convene June 3 

at 8:30 a.m. 

The Agenda items include: 

(1) Call to order and approval of the 

agenda. 

(2) Approval of the minutes from the 

92nd meeting. 

(3) Commissioners and staff reports. 

(4) Discussion and presentations 

concerning Arctic research activities. 

The focus of the meeting will be 

reports and updates on programs and 

research projects affecting the Arctic. 

If you plan to attend this meeting, 

please notify us via the contact 

information below. Any person 

planning to attend who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary 

aids, such as sign language interpreters, 

must inform the Commission of those 

needs in advance of the meeting. 

Contact person for further 

information: John Farrell, Executive 

Director, U.S. Arctic Research 

Commission, 703–525–0111 or TDD 

703–306–0090. 

John Farrell, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12712 Filed 5–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–956] 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Amended Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) has determined that it 

made certain significant ministerial 

errors in the preliminary determination 

of sales at less than fair value in the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

certain seamless carbon and alloy steel 

standard, line, and pressure pipe 

(‘‘seamless pipe’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). As a result, 

we are amending our preliminary 

determination to correct certain 

significant ministerial errors with 

respect to the antidumping duty 

margins for a mandatory respondent and 

for exporters eligible for a separate rate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Magd Zalok, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4162. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

28, 2010, the Department published its 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in this proceeding. See Certain Seamless 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, 

and Pressure Pipe From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, in Part, and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

75 FR 22372 (April 28, 2010) 

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). On May 

3, 2010, Tianjin Pipe (Group) 

Corporation and Tianjin Pipe 

International Economic and Trading 

Corporation (collectively ‘‘TPCO’’) 

submitted ministerial error allegations 

with respect to the margin calculations 

for TPCO in the Preliminary 

Determination, alleging certain errors in 

conversion, arithmetic, and surrogate 

value calculations. No other interested 

party submitted ministerial error 

allegations. After reviewing TPCO’s 

allegations, we have determined that the 

Preliminary Determination contains 

ministerial errors. We agree that the 

ministerial errors are ‘‘significant’’ as 

that term is defined in 19 CFR 

351.224(g). Therefore, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.224(e), we have made changes 

to the Preliminary Determination. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is certain seamless carbon 

and alloy steel (other than stainless 

steel) pipes and redraw hollows, less 

than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) 

in outside diameter, regardless of wall– 

thickness, manufacturing process (e.g., 

hot–finished or cold–drawn), end finish 

(e.g., plain end, beveled end, upset end, 

threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 

surface finish (e.g., bare, lacquered or 

coated). Redraw hollows are any 

unfinished carbon or alloy steel (other 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES