59688 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Notices 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Amber Himes, (206) 526– 

4221 or Amber.Hines@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The purpose of this data collection 

program is to improve commercial 

fisheries socioeconomic data for North 

Pacific fisheries, using the community 

as the unit of reporting and analysis. 

Communities are often the focus of 

policy mandates (e.g. National Standard 

8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 

Management Act (MSA), social impact 

assessments under the National 

Environmental Policy Act and MSA, 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (NPFMC) programmatic 

management goals, etc.) and are 

frequently a recognized stakeholder in 

NPFMC deliberations and programs. 

However, much of the existing 

commercial socioeconomic data is 

collected and organized around 

different units of analysis, such as 

counties (boroughs), fishing firms, 

vessels, sectors, and gear groups. It is 

often difficult to aggregate or 

disaggregate these data for analysis at 

the individual community or regional 

level. In addition, at present, some 

relevant community level 

socioeconomic data are simply not 

collected at all. The NPFMC, the Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), and 

community stakeholder organizations, 

have identified ongoing collection of 

community level economic and 

socioeconomic information, specifically 

related to commercial fisheries, as a 

priority. 

The proposed data collection will 

include information on community 

revenues based in the fisheries 

economy, population fluctuations, 

vessel expenditures in ports, fisheries 

infrastructure available in the 

community, support sector business 

operations in the community, 

community participation in fisheries 

management, effects of fisheries 

management decisions on the 

community, and demographic 

information on commercial fisheries 

participants from the community. The 

information collected in this program 

will capture the most relevant and 

pressing types of data needed for 

socioeconomic analyses of 

communities. 

II. Method of Collection 

The method of data collection will be 

a survey sent by mail (and by e-mail 

where possible). 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: None. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal 

government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

524. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 524. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting 

costs. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: September 21, 2010. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24239 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Docket 56–2010] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 203—Moses Lake, 

WA; Application for Reorganization 

and Expansion Under Alternative Site 

Framework 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board 

(the Board) by the Port of Moses Lake 

Public Corporation, grantee of FTZ 203, 

requesting authority to reorganize and 

expand the zone under the alternative 

site framework (ASF) adopted by the 

Board (74 FR 1170, 1/12/09; correction 

74 FR 3987, 1/22/09). The ASF is an 

option for grantees for the establishment 

or reorganization of general-purpose 

zones and can permit significantly 

greater flexibility in the designation of 

new ‘‘usage-driven’’ FTZ sites for 

operators/users located within a 

grantee’s ‘‘service area’’ in the context of 

the Board’s standard 2,000-acre 

activation limit for a general-purpose 

zone project. The application was 

submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade 

Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a– 

81u), and the regulations of the Board 

(15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed 

on September 23, 2010. 

FTZ 203 was approved by the Board 

on October 18, 1994 (Board Order 702, 

59 FR 54433, 10/31/94). The current 

zone project includes the following site: 

Site 1 (316 acres)—Port of Moses Lake 

Industrial Park, located within the Grant 

County International Airport complex, 

Moses Lake, Washington. 

The grantee’s proposed service area 

under the ASF would include all of 

Benton, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, 

Franklin, Grant, Kittitas, Lincoln and 

Walla Walla Counties, as well as 

portions of Okanogan and Yakima 

Counties, Washington, as described in 

the application. If approved, the grantee 

would be able to serve sites throughout 

the service area based on companies’ 

needs for FTZ designation. The 

proposed service area is within and 

adjacent to the Moses Lake Customs and 

Border Protection port of entry. 

The applicant is requesting authority 

to reorganize its existing zone project to 

include the existing site as a ‘‘magnet’’ 

site. The ASF allows for the possible 

exemption of one magnet site from the 

‘‘sunset’’ time limits that generally apply 

to sites under the ASF, and the 

applicant proposes that Site 1 be so 

exempted. The applicant is also 

requesting approval of the following 

initial ‘‘usage-driven’’ sites in Grant 

County: Proposed Site 2 (38 acres)—Zip 

Truck Line, Inc., 13957 Road 1.9 NE, 

Moses Lake; and, Proposed Site 3 (60 

acres)—SGL Automotive Carbon Fibers, 

LLC, 8781 Randolph Road NE, Moses 

Lake. Because the ASF only pertains to 

establishing or reorganizing a generalpurpose zone, the application would 

have no impact on FTZ 203’s authorized 

subzone. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Christopher Kemp of the 

FTZ Staff is designated examiner to 

evaluate and analyze the facts and 

information presented in the application 

and case record and to report findings 

and recommendations to the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address below. The closing period for 

their receipt is November 29, 2010. 

Rebuttal comments in response to 

material submitted during the foregoing 

period may be submitted during the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Notices 59689 

subsequent 15-day period to December 

13, 2010. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading 

Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site, 

which is accessible via http:// 

www.trade.gov/ftz. For further 

information, contact Christopher Kemp 

at Christopher.Kemp@trade.gov or (202) 

482–0862. 

Dated: September 23, 2010. 

Elizabeth Whiteman, 

Acting Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24319 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–821] 

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From India: Notice of Court 

Decision Not in Harmony with Final 

Results of Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 13, 2010, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of 

Commerce’s (the Department’s) results 

of redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s 

remand in United States Steel 

Corporation, et al. v. United States et al. 

and Essar Steel Limited v. United States 

et al., Slip Op. 09–152, Remand Order 

(December 30, 2009)(Essar). See Final 

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 

Court Remand, dated July 15, 2010 

(found at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands); 

and United States Steel Corporation, et 

al. v. United States et al. and Essar Steel 

Limited v. United States et al., Slip Op. 

10–104 (September 13, 2010) (Essar). 

Consistent with the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. 

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 

1990) (Timken), the Department is 

notifying the public that the final 

judgment in this case is not in harmony 

with the Department’s final results of 

the administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on certain 

hot–rolled carbon steel flat products 

(HRCS) from India covering the period 

of review (POR) of January 1, 2006, 

through December 31, 2006. See Certain 

Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from India: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 40295 (July 14, 2008) 

(Final Results), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D 

Memorandum). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gayle Longest, 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) 

482–3338. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 14, 2008, the Department 

published its final results in the 

countervailing duty administrative 

review of HRCS from India covering the 

POR of January 1, 2006, through 

December 31, 2006. See Final Results. In 

the Final Results, the Department did 

not include central sales taxes paid on 

domestic purchases of iron ore lumps 

and for high–grade iron ore fines 

because we did not have information on 

import duties and other taxes and fees 

payable on imports of iron ore to be 

included in the calculation of the 

benchmark. See I&D Memorandum at 

‘‘Sale of High–Grade Iron Ore for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration’’ section 

and Comment 4. In Essar, the CIT 

determined that the Department’s Final 

Results were not supported by 

substantial evidence on the record, and 

it remanded to the Department the issue 

of the deduction of Central Sales Tax 

from the government price in order for 

the Department to reevaluate the record 

evidence supporting this decision. 

Moreover, subsequent to the Final 

Results, we discovered that the 

transportation and delivery charges (i.e., 

all transportation and handling costs, 

duties and fees) for iron ore lumps and 

fines from Vizag port to Hazira port had 

not been included in either the iron ore 

lumps or fines calculations. Therefore, 

the we asked the court for a voluntary 

remand to adjust Essar’s delivered 

purchase price for fines from NMDC to 

include missing delivery charges. In 

Essar, the CIT granted the Department’s 

request for a voluntary remand to 

correct the freight calculations for 

Essar’s purchases of iron ore fines from 

the National Mineral Development 

Corporation (NMDC). Specifically, the 

CIT ordered the Department to adjust 

the government price for iron ore lumps 

and fines used in the price comparison 

to measure the adequacy of 

remuneration (1) to correct freight 

calculations for Essar’s purchases of 

iron ore fines from the NMDC and (2) to 

account for slurry pipe transporation 

cost to Vizag. 

On July 15, 2010, the Department 

issued its final results of 

redetermination pursuant to Essar. The 

remand redetermination explained that, 

in accordance with the CIT’s 

instructions, the Department has made 

redeterminations with respect to the 

calculation of the government price for 

iron ore lumps and fines as well as 

Essar’s purchases of lumps and fines for 

the following three issues. First, we 

adjusted our iron ore calculations to 

measure the adequacy of remuneration 

of sales of lumps and fines by the GOI 

to Essar to include Central Sales Tax for 

Essar’s purchase of iron ore lumps and 

high–grade iron ore fines from the 

NMDC and to include import duties 

payable on iron ore with regard to the 

corresponding benchmark prices. 

Second, we corrected the government 

price for iron ore lumps and fines to 

address erroneous freight calculations 

for Essar’s purchases of iron ore from 

NMDC. Third, for fines purchases from 

NMDC made on or after the date the 

slurry pipeline became operational, we 

have replaced the per metric ton (MT) 

rail cost with the per MT slurry 

transportation costs. The Department’s 

redetermination resulted in changes to 

the Final Results for Essar’s net subsidy 

rate concerning the sale of iron ore for 

less than adequate remuneration 

program from 13.21 percent to 19.35 

percent. Therefore, the Department’s 

redetermination resulted in the total net 

countervailable subsidy rate received by 

Essar in the Final Results changing from 

17.50 percent to 23.64 percent. 

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 

341, the CAFC held that, pursuant to 

section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), the 

Department must publish a notice of a 

court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ 

with a Department determination and 

must suspend liquidation of entries 

pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. 

The CIT’s decision in Essar on 

September 13, 2010, constitutes a final 

decision of that court that is not in 

harmony with the Department’s Final 

Results. This notice is published in 

fulfillment of the publication 

requirements of Timken. Accordingly, 

the Department will continue the 

suspension of liquidation of the subject 

merchandise pending the expiration of 

the period of appeal or, if appealed, 

pending a final and conclusive court 

decision. In the event the CIT’s ruling is 

not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by 

the CAFC, the Department will issue an 

amended final results consistent with 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES