64696 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 

consists of a distribution of 

polyphosphate chain lengths. It is a 

collection of sodium polyphosphate 

polymers built on repeating NaPO3

units. Sodium hexametaphosphate has a 

P2O5 content from 60 to 71 percent. 

Alternate names for sodium 

hexametaphosphate include the 

following: Calgon; Calgon S; Glassy 

Sodium Phosphate; Sodium 

Polyphosphate, Glassy; Metaphosphoric 

Acid; Sodium Salt; Sodium Acid 

Metaphosphate; Graham’s Salt; Sodium 

Hex; Polyphosphoric Acid, Sodium Salt; 

Glass H; Hexaphos; Sodaphos; Vitrafos; 

and BAC–N–FOS. Sodium 

hexametaphosphate is typically sold as 

a white powder or granule (crushed) 

and may also be sold in the form of 

sheets (glass) or as a liquid solution. It 

is imported under heading 

2835.39.5000, HTSUS. It may also be 

imported as a blend or mixture under 

heading 3824.90.3900, HTSUS. The 

American Chemical Society, Chemical 

Abstract Service (‘‘CAS’’) has assigned 

the name ‘‘Polyphosphoric Acid, 

Sodium Salt’’ to sodium 

hexametaphosphate. The CAS registry 

number is 68915–31–1. However, 

sodium hexametaphosphate is 

commonly identified by CAS No. 

10124–56–8 in the market. For purposes 

of the review, the narrative description 

is dispositive, not the tariff heading, 

CAS registry number or CAS name. 

The product covered by this review 

includes sodium hexametaphosphate in 

all grades, whether food grade or 

technical grade. The product covered by 

this review includes sodium 

hexametaphosphate without regard to 

chain length i.e., whether regular or 

long chain. The product covered by this 

review includes sodium 

hexametaphosphate without regard to 

physical form, whether glass, sheet, 

crushed, granule, powder, fines, or other 

form, and whether or not in solution. 

However, the product covered by this 

review does not include sodium 

hexametaphosphate when imported in a 

blend with other materials in which the 

sodium hexametaphosphate accounts 

for less than 50 percent by volume of 

the finished product. 

Final Results of Review 

The weighted-average dumping 

margin for the POR is as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Hubei Xingfa ............................. 82.62 

Assessment 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific (or customer) ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate, without regard 

to antidumping duties, all entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR for 

which the importer-specific assessment 

rate is zero or de minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established in these 

final results of review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 188.05 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this POR. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties has occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

administrative review and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: October 12, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Issues & Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Inputs to Inputs—Electricity 

Comment 2: Date of Sale 

Comment 3: Surrogate Values 

A. Sodium Pyrophosphate 

B. Coal 

C. Coke 

D. Phosphate Slag 

E. Labor 

Comment 4: Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 5: Placement of By-products in the 

Normal Value Calculation 

[FR Doc. 2010–26458 Filed 10–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–502] 

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes 

and Tubes From Thailand: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On April 13, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on circular 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 64697 

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 

(pipes and tubes) from Thailand. The 

review was requested by Allied Tube 

and Conduit Corporation (Allied Tube), 

by Wheatland Tube Company 

(Wheatland) (collectively, domestic 

interested parties or petitioners), and by 

Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company 

Ltd. (Saha Thai) (respondent). This 

review covers one producer/exporter of 

the subject merchandise, Saha Thai. The 

period of review (POR) is March 1, 2008 

through February 28, 2009. Based on the 

results of verification and our analysis 

of the comments received, we have 

made changes to the preliminary results, 

which are discussed in the ‘‘Changes 

Since the Preliminary Results’’ section 

below. For the final dumping margins, 

see the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section 

below. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Myrna Lobo or Jacqueline Arrowsmith, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2371 or (202) 482– 

5255, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 13, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on pipes and tubes from Thailand. See 

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 

Tubes from Thailand: Preliminary 

Results and Rescission, in Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 18788 (April 13, 2010) 

(Preliminary Results). 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department stated that its decision to 

apply the quarterly cost methodology 

and to perform quarterly price-to-price 

comparisons raised a novel issue with 

respect to the level of trade (LOT) 

analysis of the pattern of price 

differences and any possible LOT 

adjustment warranted by that analysis. 

The Department, therefore, invited 

parties to comment on whether the 

application of the quarterly cost 

methodology necessarily requires an 

evaluation on a quarterly basis of the 

pattern of price differences and how any 

such differences should be analyzed. 

Parties were also invited to comment on 

whether, if a pattern of price differences 

is found to exist, any LOT adjustment 

should be done on a yearly basis or on 

a quarterly basis. On April 23, 2010, the 

Department received comments from 

Saha Thai. 

On May 4, 2010 we revised the due 

dates for comments on the Preliminary 

Results, due to the anticipated timing of 

verification, and informed parties of the 

same. The Department conducted a 

verification of Saha Thai’s questionnaire 

responses in Bangkok, Thailand, from 

July 12, 2010 through July 23, 2010. See 

‘‘Verification’’ section below. 

On August 20, 2010 we informed 

parties of the deadlines to comment on 

the Preliminary Results and verification 

reports and requested Saha Thai to 

submit revised sales databases in view 

of the minor corrections presented at 

verification. On August 23, 2010 Saha 

Thai submitted its revised sales 

databases. On August 27, 2010 we 

received a timely case brief from Saha 

Thai, and on September 1, 2010, we 

received a timely rebuttal brief from 

Allied Tube on behalf of domestic 

interested parties. The Department did 

not receive a request for a hearing. 

On May 21, 2010, the Department 

extended the deadline for issuing the 

final results until no later than October 

12, 2010. See Circular Welded Carbon 

Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 28557 

(May 21, 2010). On October 12, 2010, 

the Department tolled the deadline for 

the final results by one day, to October 

13, 2010, due to the occurrence of a fire 

and the closure of the main Commerce 

building on Friday, October 8, 2010. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is March 

1, 2008 through February 28, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this 

antidumping order are certain welded 

carbon steel pipes and tubes from 

Thailand. The subject merchandise has 

an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or 

more, but not exceeding 16 inches. 

These products, which are commonly 

referred to in the industry as ‘‘standard 

pipe’’ or ‘‘structural tubing’’ are 

hereinafter designated as ‘‘pipes and 

tubes.’’ The merchandise is classifiable 

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (HTSUS) item 

numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 

7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 

7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085 and 

7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for the 

convenience and purposes of CBP, our 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), from July 12 through July 23, 

2010, the Department verified the cost 

and sales information submitted by 

Saha Thai in its questionnaire responses 

provided during the course of this 

review. We used standard verification 

procedures including examination of 

relevant accounting and production 

records, and original source documents 

provided by the respondent. See 

Memorandum from Heidi Schriefer, 

Senior Accountant, to The File, 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of 

Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, 

Limited, in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Circular 

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 

from Thailand,’’ dated August 17, 2010 

(‘‘Cost Verification Report’’); see also 

Memorandum from Jacqueline 

Arrowsmith and Myrna Lobo, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analysts, to The File, ‘‘Verification of 

the Sales Response of Saha Thai Steel 

Pipe (Public) Co., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Review of Circular 

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 

from Thailand,’’ dated August 18, 2010 

(‘‘Sales Verification Report’’). The public 

versions of both verification reports are 

on file in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU), Room 7046 of the main 

Commerce Building. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the Memorandum from Susan H. 

Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Results of the Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes 

and Tubes from Thailand’’ (Decision 

Memorandum), dated concurrently with 

this notice and which is hereby adopted 

by this notice. A list of the issues 

addressed in the Decision Memorandum 

is appended to this notice. The Decision 

Memorandum is on file in the CRU, and 

can be accessed directly on the Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on the results of verification 

and our analysis of comments received, 

we have made adjustments to our 

margin calculations. At the preliminary 

results, we made an adjustment under 

section 773(f)(2) of the Act, the 

‘‘transactions disregarded rule,’’ to Saha 

Thai’s purchases of coils from an 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
64698 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 

affiliated party. We have now 

determined that record evidence shows 

that these transactions were made at 

arm’s length prices, and thus we are not 

making any adjustment under section 

773(f)(2) of the Act for the final results. 

In addition, we have revised the general 

and administrative and financial 

expense rates by no longer adjusting the 

cost of goods sold denominator to reflect 

an adjustment for the transactions 

disregarded rule. Further, we have 

revised the financial expense rate 

calculation from the preliminary results 

to exclude interest income generated 

from long-term assets. We have revised 

the calculation of the total cost of 

manufacturing from the preliminary 

results to exclude the ‘‘other materials’’ 

(‘‘OTHMAT’’) field. We have determined 

that this field serves only as a subtotal 

of other material costs; therefore, the 

inclusion of both the individual other 

material cost fields and the ‘‘OTHMAT’’ 

field double counts these costs. We have 

also revised the calculation of the cost 

of production to exclude the ‘‘DUTY’’ 

field because these costs were already 

included in the direct materials costs 

field. We have also made adjustments to 

hot-rolled coil costs, conversion costs, 

and other material costs based on our 

verification findings. 

In addition, based on the results of 

verification and the minor corrections 

reported by Saha Thai at verification, 

there are changes to the sales databases 

including changes to U.S. sales ship 

dates and certain U.S. and home market 

movement and selling expenses, and the 

correction of one reseller’s home market 

prices. These adjustments are discussed 

in detail in the Decision Memorandum; 

and/or Memorandum to File from 

Myrna Lobo, ‘‘Analysis of Saha Thai 

Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd., for 

the Final Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Circular 

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 

from Thailand for the period 03/01/2008 

through 02/28/2009,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice (‘‘Final 

Results Analysis Memorandum’’); and/ 

or Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, from 

Heidi K. Schriefer, Senior Accountant, 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Final Results—Saha Thai Steel Pipe 

(Public) Company, Ltd.,’’ also dated 

concurrently with this notice, all of 

which are on file in the CRU. 

Level of Trade (LOT) 

In the Preliminary Results we 

determined that Saha Thai had two 

distinct levels of trade (LOT 1 and LOT 

2) in the home market, and a single LOT 

in the U.S. market which matched LOT 

1 in the home market. For U.S. sales for 

which there is not a match in the home 

market at LOT 1, that are matched with 

LOT 2 sales, we must consider whether 

an LOT adjustment is warranted when 

the difference in LOT is demonstrated to 

affect price comparability, based on a 

pattern of consistent price differences. 

However, our decision to apply the 

quarterly cost methodology raised a 

novel issue with respect to the LOT 

analysis of pattern of price differences 

and any possible LOT adjustment based 

on that analysis. We therefore invited 

parties to comment on this issue and we 

received comments from Saha Thai 

recommending that the Department 

calculate a POR-wide LOT adjustment 

even when a quarterly methodology had 

been used to calculate costs and make 

price to price comparisons. However, 

after incorporating all the changes to the 

cost and sales information necessitated 

by verification, we find that all of Saha 

Thai’s U.S. market sales are matched to 

sales in the home market at the same 

level of trade. Therefore, there is no 

basis for conducting a level of trade 

analysis and an LOT adjustment is 

unwarranted. 

Final Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that the following weightedaverage margin exists for the period of 

March 1, 2008 through February 28, 

2009: 

Manufacturer/ 

exporter 

Weighted-average 

margin (percent) 

Saha Thai Steel 

Pipe (Public) 

Company, Ltd .... 2.13 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department calculates an assessment 

rate for each importer of the subject 

merchandise. The Department intends 

to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of these 

final results of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review produced by the company 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed company did 

not know their merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate from the investigation if 

there is no rate for the intermediate 

company involved in the transaction. 

For a full discussion of this clarification, 

see Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Proceedings: Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 

6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

final results of this administrative 

review for all shipments of subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date of these final 

results, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

company covered by this review, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate listed 

above; (2) for merchandise exported by 

producers or exporters not covered in 

this review but covered in a previous 

segment of this proceeding, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published in the 

most recent final results in which that 

producer or exporter participated; (3) if 

the exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review or in any previous segment of 

this proceeding, but the producer is, the 

cash deposit rate will be that established 

for the producer of the merchandise in 

these final results of review or in the 

most recent final results in which that 

producer participated; and, (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the producer is a firm 

covered in this review or in any 

previous segment of this proceeding, the 

cash deposit rate will be 15.67 percent, 

the all-others rate established in the less 

than fair value investigation. See 

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 

Tubes from Thailand: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 51 FR 3384 (January 27, 

1986). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

of the Department’s regulations to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred, and in the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 64699 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice is the only reminder to 

parties subject to the administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under the APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3) of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results and this notice in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: October 13, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Issues in Decision 

Memorandum Circular Welded Carbon 

Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review for the Period of 

Review: 3/1/2008—2/28/2009 

Comment 1: Analysis of Transactions With 

an Affiliated Supplier 

Comment 2: Treatment of Unpaid Exempted 

Duties 

Comment 3: Use of Single Average Coil Costs 

Comment 4: Use of Lower of Cost or Market 

(LCM) Write-Down for Raw Materials 

Comment 5: Treatment of LCM Write-Downs 

When Using the Alternative Cost 

Methodology 

Comment 6: Annualizing Costs Over the 

Entire Cost Reporting Period 

Comment 7: Total Cost Reconciliation 

Comment 8: Treatment of Paid Import Duties 

on Raw Materials 

Comment 9: Treatment of Other Material 

Costs 

Comment 10: Level of Trade Adjustment 

Comment 11: Use of the Zeroing 

Methodology 

[FR Doc. 2010–26424 Filed 10–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1714] 

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; 

VF Corporation (Apparel, Footwear and 

Luggage Distribution), Martinsville, VA 

Pursuant to its authority under the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), 

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the 

Board) adopts the following Order: 

Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act 

provides for ‘‘* * * the establishment 

* * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 

entry of the United States, to expedite 

and encourage foreign commerce, and 

for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to 

qualified corporations the privilege of 

establishing foreign-trade zones in or 

adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection ports of entry; 

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15 

CFR Part 400) provide for the 

establishment of special-purpose 

subzones when existing zone facilities 

cannot serve the specific use involved, 

and when the activity results in a 

significant public benefit and is in the 

public interest; 

Whereas, the New River Economic 

Development Alliance, Inc., grantee of 

Foreign-Trade Zone 238, has made 

application to the Board for authority to 

establish a special-purpose subzone at 

the warehouse/distribution facilities of 

VF Corporation, located in Martinsville, 

Virginia (FTZ Docket 54–2009, filed 12/ 

02/2009); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment has been given in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 66621–66622, 12/16/ 

2009) and the application has been 

processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and 

the Board’s regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

grants authority for subzone status for 

activity related to apparel, footwear and 

luggage warehousing and distribution at 

the facilities of VF Corporation, located 

in Martinsville, Virginia (Subzone 

238A), as described in the application 

and Federal Register notice, subject to 

the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations, 

including Section 400.28. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of 

October 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26418 Filed 10–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

Commerce Spectrum Management 

Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

public meeting of the Commerce 

Spectrum Management Advisory 

Committee (Committee). The Committee 

provides advice to the Assistant 

Secretary of Commerce for 

Communications and Information on 

spectrum management policy matters. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

November 8, 2010, from 10 a.m. to 1 

p.m., Eastern Standard Time. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4830, 

Washington, DC. Public comments may 

be mailed to Commerce Spectrum 

Management Advisory Committee, 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4725, 

Washington, DC 20230, or e-mailed to 

spectrumadvisory@ntia.doc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Gattuso, Designated Federal Officer, at 

(202) 482–0977 or 

jgattuso@ntia.doc.gov; and/or visit 

NTIA’s Web site at http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/advisory/spectrum. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The Committee provides 

advice to the Assistant Secretary of 

Commerce for Communications and 

Information on needed reforms to 

domestic spectrum policies and 

management in order to: License radio 

frequencies in a way that maximizes 

their public benefits; keep wireless 

networks open to innovation; and make 

wireless services available to all 

Americans (see charter, at http://www.

ntia.doc.gov/advisory/spectrum/csmac_

charter.html). This Committee is subject 

to the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and is 

consistent with the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration Act, 47 U.S.C. 904(b). 

The Committee functions solely as an 

advisory body in compliance with the 

FACA. For more information about the 

Committee visit: http://www.ntia.doc.

gov/advisory/spectrum. 

Matters to be Considered: The 

Committee will hear presentations on 

issues and will receive status reports 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES