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
59690 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Notices 

these redeterminations and instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to assess 

countervailing duties on entries of the 

subject merchandise during the POR 

from Essar based on the revised 

assessment rates calculated by the 

Department. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 516A(e)(1) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 

Dated: September 22, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24312 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 100604243–0430–02] 

RIN 0648–XW88 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

Notice of 90-Day Finding on a Petition 

To List Warsaw Grouper as Threatened 

or Endangered Under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90- 

day finding on a petition to list warsaw 

grouper (Epinephelus nigritus) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. We find that the petition does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and 

related materials are available upon 

request from the Chief, Protected 

Resources Division, Southeast Regional 

Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701, or online from 

the NMFS HQ Web site: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/ 

warsawgrouper.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Barnette, NMFS Southeast 

Region, 727–551–5794, or Marta 

Nammack, NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources, 301–713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 3, 2010, we received a 

petition from the WildEarth Guardians 

to list warsaw grouper (Epinephelus 

nigritus) as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA. Copies of this petition 

are available from us (see ADDRESSES, 

above). 

ESA Statutory and Regulatory 

Provisions and Evaluation Framework 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, 

as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

requires, to the maximum extent 

practicable, that within 90 days of 

receipt of a petition to list a species as 

threatened or endangered, the Secretary 

of Commerce make a finding on whether 

that petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, and to promptly 

publish such finding in the Federal 

Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When 

it is found that substantial scientific or 

commercial information in a petition 

indicates the petitioned action may be 

warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day finding’’), 

we are required to promptly commence 

a review of the status of the species 

concerned during which we will 

conduct a comprehensive review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information. In such cases, within 1 

year of receipt of the petition, we shall 

conclude the review with a finding as to 

whether, in fact, the petitioned action is 

warranted. Because the finding at the 

12-month stage is based on a more 

thorough review of the available 

information, as compared to the narrow 

scope of review at the 90-day stage, a 

‘‘may be warranted’’ finding does not 

prejudge the outcome of the status 

review. 

Under the ESA, a listing 

determination may address a ‘‘species,’’ 

which is defined to also include 

subspecies and, for any vertebrate 

species, a distinct population segment 

(DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 

U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species, subspecies, 

or DPS is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and 

‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) 

and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 

1532(6) and (20)). The ESA requires us 

to determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered because of 

any one or a combination of the 

following five section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range; (2) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (3) disease or 

predation; (4) inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; and (5) any 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting the species’ existence (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). 

ESA-implementing regulations issued 

jointly by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS; 50 CFR 

424.14(b)) define ‘‘substantial 

information’’ in the context of reviewing 

a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species as the amount of information 

that would lead a reasonable person to 

believe that the measure proposed in the 

petition may be warranted. In evaluating 

whether substantial information is 

contained in a petition, the Secretary 

must consider whether the petition: (1) 

Clearly indicates the administrative 

measure recommended and gives the 

scientific and any common name of the 

species involved; (2) contains detailed 

narrative justification for the 

recommended measure, describing, 

based on available information, past and 

present numbers and distribution of the 

species involved and any threats faced 

by the species; (3) provides information 

regarding the status of the species over 

all or a significant portion of its range; 

and (4) is accompanied by the 

appropriate supporting documentation 

in the form of bibliographic references, 

reprints of pertinent publications, 

copies of reports or letters from 

authorities, and maps (50 CFR 

424.14(b)(2)). 

To make a 90-day finding on a 

petition to list a species, we evaluate 

whether the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating the subject 

species may meet the ESA’s definition 

of either an endangered or a threatened 

species, and that such status may be the 

result of one or a combination of the 

factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the 

ESA. Thus, we first evaluate whether 

the information presented in the 

petition, along with the information 

readily available in our files, indicates 

that the species at issue faces extinction 

risk that is cause for concern. Risk 

classifications of the petitioned species 

by other organizations or made under 

other statutes may be informative, but 

may not provide rationale for a positive 

90-day finding; many times these 

classifications are generalized for a 

group of species, or only describe traits 

of species that could increase their 

vulnerability to extinction if they were 

being adversely impacted. We evaluate 

any information on specific 

demographic factors pertinent to 

evaluating extinction risk for the species 

at issue (e.g., population abundance and 

trends, productivity, spatial structure, 

age structure, sex ratio, diversity, 

current and historical range, habitat 

integrity), and the potential contribution 

of identified demographic risks to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES