52822 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 177 / Thursday, September 11, 2008 / Notices 

sunset limit would require within five 

years of approval admission into the site 

of foreign non-duty paid material for a 

bona fide customs purpose. Experience 

in administering the framework could 

also reveal a need to adjust practice for 

usage-driven sites to implement 

intermediate benchmarks (such as 

progress towards activation) rather than 

a single deadline date at the end of a 

five-year period. 

10. Magnet sites and usage-driven 

sites would also be subject to ongoing 

‘‘recycling’’ whereby activation at a site 

during the site’s initial sunset period 

would serve to push back the sunset 

date by another five years (when the 

sunset test would again apply). Finally, 

if all of a grantee’s sites were due to 

sunset based on lack of activation, the 

grantee would need to apply to the FTZ 

Board at least 12 months in advance of 

the ultimate sunset termination to 

request designation of at least one site 

for the period beyond the sunset of the 

previously approved sites. 

11. An optional five-year transitional 

phase would be available for grantees of 

zones with existing configurations that 

differ from the general parameters 

envisioned in the proposal. For the 

optional transitional phase, an 

individual grantee could apply to 

reorganize its zone and request 

continued FTZ designation for existing 

sites that the grantee determines warrant 

further opportunity to demonstrate a 

need for FTZ status. For the transition 

period, there would be no specific goal 

in terms of numbers of existing sites 

which could be proposed for magnet 

designation. However, sites proposed 

for a zone’s transitional phase would 

need to comply with the framework’s 

limit of 2,000 floating acres within the 

zone’s site (see further discussion 

below). 

12. For the transitional phase for a 

particular zone, the grantee would have 

the option of requesting usage-driven 

designation for any site where a single 

entity is conducting (or ready to 

conduct) FTZ activity. For sites that the 

grantee believes are better suited to a 

magnet (multi-user) role, the grantee 

could request magnet designation. Any 

usage-driven sites would have the 

standard five-year sunset period for 

such sites. The FTZ Board would 

establish sunset limits for individual 

magnet sites based on the facts of the 

case (particularly as they pertain to each 

site). For the transition phase, the 

default sunset limit for magnet sites 

would be five years but the FTZ Board 

would be able to establish longer sunset 

limits for specific sites if warranted by 

the facts and circumstances present. 

13. The five-year transition period for 

a specific grantee would begin with 

approval of the grantee’s reorganization 

application by the FTZ Board. During 

the final year of the transition period, 

the FTZ Board staff would initiate a 

review of all of the zone’s sites for 

which the sunset limits align with the 

end of the transition period. The staff 

review would examine whether each of 

those sites had been activated during 

the transition period and, for activated 

sites, the specific FTZ activity which 

had taken place (including the 

operator(s)/user(s) for each site). The 

staff review of a zone’s transition period 

would result in a report noting any sites 

subject to the review which had 

remained unactivated during the period 

(for which FTZ designation would selfremove at the end of the period). The 

staff report would also make 

preliminary recommendations regarding 

magnet or usage-driven designation 

going forward for sites activated during 

the period. The FTZ Board staff would 

provide its preliminary 

recommendations to the zone’s grantee 

and allow a period of 30 days for the 

grantee to provide any response to the 

staff’s recommendations. After the end 

of the 30-day period, the staff would 

create a final report taking into account 

any response from the grantee regarding 

the preliminary recommendations. 

Where appropriate, the Board’s 

Executive Secretary would be able to 

take action on a recommended 

transition of a site from magnet to usagedriven designation via the minor 

boundary modification process. 

14. The transitional phase for any 

zone would be limited by the defining 

2,000 acre limit inherent in the 

proposed framework. In this context, if 

existing sites which a grantee wishes to 

propose for a transitional phase 

cumulatively exceed 2,000 acres in their 

current configuration, the grantee would 

need to determine the amount of 

‘‘floating’’ acreage to propose within the 

boundaries of each such existing site. 

(For example, if an existing site is the 

340-acre Acme Industrial Park, the 

grantee could propose 200 floating acres 

within the 340-acre Acme Industrial 

Park.) A grantee might opt for a simple 

mechanism to apportion a certain total 

amount of floating acreage among sites 

it is proposing for the transitional phase 

(after making allowance for the amount 

of acreage the grantee determines it 

needs to keep in reserve for possible 

future minor boundary modifications; a 

grantee retaining a minimum of 200 

acres in reserve is advisable). 

It is important to note that the 

elements of the proposal support each 

other in furthering the goals of 

flexibility and focus for FTZ site 

designation (with important resulting 

resource- and efficiency-related benefits 

for the government). As such, a 

framework incorporating these types of 

elements would include the package of 

elements as an available alternative to 

the Board’s current practice. FTZ 

grantees opting to manage their zones 

under the Board’s current framework 

would be unaffected by this proposal. 

As is currently the case, minor 

boundary modification actions would be 

approved by the Board’s staff while 

modifications to a zone’s ‘‘plan’’ (e.g., 

increase in authorized FTZ acreage, 

modifications to service area) would be 

matters for the FTZ Board’s 

consideration. 

In addition, in order to help the FTZ 

Board evaluate the effectiveness and 

appropriateness of the alternative 

framework after actual experience with 

FTZ grantees, the FTZ staff would 

report to the Board on a periodic basis 

regarding the actual usage of the 

alternative framework. The staff’s 

reporting regarding implementation of 

the framework at individual 

participating FTZs would result from 

staff-initiated reviews and would not 

require any request or application from 

the grantee. 

Public comment on this proposal is 

invited from interested parties. We ask 

that parties fax a copy of their 

comments, addressed to the Board’s 

Executive Secretary, to (202) 482–0002. 

We also ask that parties submit the 

original of their comments to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

following address: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. The closing period for the 

receipt of public comments is October 

31, 2008. Any questions about this 

request for comments may be directed to 

the FTZ Board staff at (202) 482–2862. 

Dated: September 8, 2008. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–21232 Filed 9–10–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Action Affecting Export Privileges; 

Ralph Michel 

Ralph Michel, 41 Rosewood Drive, 

Easton, CT 06612, U.S., Respondent; 

Order 

On November 12, 2003, having 

approved the terms of a settlement 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 177 / Thursday, September 11, 2008 / Notices 52823 

1 50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 (2000). Since August 

21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the 

President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 

17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which 

has been extended by successive Presidential 

Notices, the most recent being that of July 23, 2008 

(73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008)), has continued the 

Regulations in effect under the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 

1701–1706 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). 

2The Regulations are currently codified in the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 

730–774 (2008). The current version of the 

Regulations govern the procedural aspects of this 

case. The charged violations occurred in 1997. The 

Regulations governing the charged violations are 

found in the 1997 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (15 CFR parts 730–774 (1997)). 

agreement between the Bureau of 

Industry and Security, United States 

Department of Commerce (‘‘BIS’’), and 

Respondent Ralph Michel (‘‘Michel’’), 

then-Assistant Secretary for Export 

Enforcement Julie L. Myers issued an 

Order (68 FR 65032, Nov. 18, 2003) 

resolving an administrative proceeding 

against Michel pursuant to Section 13(c) 

of the Export Administration Act of 

1979, as amended (‘‘Act’’),1 and the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(‘‘Regulations’’),2 based on allegations in 

a proposed charging letter that Michel 

had committed six violations of the 

Regulations. 

Among other things, the November 

12, 2003 Order provided a non-standard 

denial of export privileges that 

prohibited Michel, for a period of five 

years from the date of that Order, from 

participating in any way in any 

transaction involving the export from 

the United States to Pakistan of any item 

subject to the Regulations or in any 

other activity subject to the Regulations 

that involves Pakistan. 

Whereas, the November 12, 2003 

Order lists Michel as ‘‘Ralph Michel, 

Vice President, Omega Engineering, 

Inc., One Omega Drive, Stamford, 

Connecticut 06907’’; 

Whereas, the Office of Export 

Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and 

Security, U.S. Department of Commerce 

(‘‘OEE’’), has confirmed that this 

address is no longer correct, and that 

Michel’s current address is ‘‘41 

Rosewood Dr., Easton, CT 06612’’; and 

Whereas, as a result of the 

information OEE obtained regarding 

Michel’s current address, OEE has 

requested that an order be issued 

amending the November 12, 2003 Order 

to reflect that new address for Michel; 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that 

the November 12, 2003 Order denying 

Michel for five years from participating 

in any way in any transaction involving 

the export from the United States to 

Pakistan of any item subject to the 

Regulations or in any other activity 

subject to the Regulations that involves 

Pakistan is amended by deleting the 

address ‘‘Vice President, Omega 

Engineering, Inc., One Omega Drive, 

Stamford, Connecticut 06907’’, and by 

adding the address ‘‘41 Rosewood Dr., 

Easton, CT 06612’’. In all other aspects, 

the November 12, 2003 Order remains 

in full force and effect. 

This Order shall be effective 

immediately upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Entered this 4th day of September 2008. 

Darryl W. Jackson, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E8–21229 Filed 9–10–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475–801, A–588–

804, A–412–801] 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the 

United Kingdom: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in 

Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 7, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on ball 

bearings and parts thereof from France, 

Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom. The reviews cover 27 

manufacturers/exporters. The period of 

review is May 1, 2006, through April 30, 

2007. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes, including corrections of certain 

programming and other ministerial 

errors, in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final results differ from 

the preliminary results. The final 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

the reviewed firms are listed below in 

the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of the 

Reviews.’’

DATES: Effective Date: September 11, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Catherine 

Cartsos or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1757 or (202) 482–

4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 7, 2008, the Department of 

Commerce published the preliminary 

results of the administrative reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on ball 

bearings and parts thereof from France, 

Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom. See Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, 

Japan, and the United Kingdom: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and Intent 

to Rescind Reviews in Part, 73 FR 25654 

(May 7, 2008) (Preliminary Results). For 

these administrative reviews, the period 

of review covered is May 1, 2006, 

through April 30, 2007. 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the preliminary results. At 

the request of certain parties, we held a 

hearing for Japan-specific issues on July 

1, 2008, a hearing for Germany-specific 

issues on July 10, 2008, a hearing for 

France-specific issues on July 11, 2008, 

and a hearing for general issues on July 

15, 2008. The Department has 

conducted these administrative reviews 

in accordance with section 751 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of Orders 

The products covered by the orders 

are ball bearings (other than tapered 

roller bearings) and parts thereof. These 

products include all antifriction 

bearings that employ balls as the rolling 

element. Imports of these products are 

classified under the following 

categories: antifriction balls, ball 

bearings with integral shafts, ball 

bearings (including radial ball bearings) 

and parts thereof, and housed or 

mounted ball bearing units and parts 

thereof. 

Imports of these products are 

classified under the following 

Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS) 

subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.10, 

4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 

8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 

8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 

8482.99.35, 8482.99.2580, 8482.99.6595, 

8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 

8483.30.80, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 

8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 

8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.93.30, 

8708.93.6000, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.3100, 

8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.58, 

8708.99.8015, 8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 

8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 

8803.90.90. 

As a result of changes to the HTS, 

effective February 2, 2007, the subject 

merchandise is also classifiable under 

the following additional HTS item 

numbers: 8708.30.50.90, 8708.40.75.00, 

8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.8900, 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES