Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices 67685 

Agreements Program announced in the 

Federal Register on July 16, 2010 (75 FR 

41662). The new deadline for final 

applications is February 22, 2011. The 

program extends the solicitation period 

due to a typo made in the deadline date 

published in the original 

announcement. 

Limitation of Liability 

In no event will NOAA or the 

Department of Commerce be responsible 

for proposal preparation costs if this 

program is cancelled because of other 

agency priorities. Publication of this 

announcement does not oblige NOAA to 

award any specific project or to obligate 

any available funds. Applicants are 

hereby given notice that funding for the 

Fiscal Year 2011 program is contingent 

upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2011 

appropriations. 

Universal Identifier 

Applicants should be aware they are 

required to provide a Dun and 

Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering 

System (DUNS) number during the 

application process. See the October 30, 

2002, Federal Register, (67 FR 66177) 

for additional information. 

Organizations can receive a DUNS 

number at no cost by calling the 

dedicated toll-free DUNS Number 

request line at 1–866–705–5711 or via 

the Internet at http:// 

www.dunandbradstreet.com. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NOAA must analyze the potential 

environmental impacts, as required by 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), for applicant projects or 

proposals which are seeking NOAA 

federal funding opportunities. Detailed 

information on NOAA compliance with 

NEPA can be found at the following 

NOAA NEPA Web site: http:// 

www.nepa.noaa.gov/, including our 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6 for 

NEPA, http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/ 

NAO216_6_TOC.pdf, and the Council 

on Environmental Quality 

implementation regulations, http:// 

ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/ 

toc_ceq.htm. Consequently, as part of an 

applicant’s package, and under their 

description of their program activities, 

applicants are required to provide 

detailed information on the activities to 

be conducted, locations, sites, species 

and habitat to be affected, possible 

construction activities, and any 

environmental concerns that may exist 

(e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous 

or toxic chemicals, introduction of nonindigenous species, impacts to 

endangered and threatened species, 

aquaculture projects, and impacts to 

coral reef systems). In addition to 

providing specific information that will 

serve as the basis for any required 

impact analyses, applicants may also be 

requested to assist NOAA in drafting of 

an environmental assessment, if NOAA 

determines an assessment is required. 

Applicants will also be required to 

cooperate with NOAA in identifying 

feasible measures to reduce or avoid any 

identified adverse environmental 

impacts of their proposal. The failure to 

do so shall be grounds for not selecting 

an application. In some cases if 

additional information is required after 

an application is selected, funds can be 

withheld by the Grants Officer under a 

special award condition requiring the 

recipient to submit additional 

environmental compliance information 

sufficient to enable NOAA to make an 

assessment on any impacts that a project 

may have on the environment. 

The Department of Commerce Preaward Notification Requirements for 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

contained in the Federal Register notice 

of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), as 

amended by the Federal Register notice 

published on: October 30, 2002 (67 FR 

66109); December 30, 2004 (69 FR 

78389); and February 11, 2008 (73 FR 

7696) are applicable to this solicitation. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The 

use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, 

SF–LLL, and CD–346 has been approved 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the respective 

control numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044, 

0348–0040, 0348–0046, and 0605–0001. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, no person is required to respond to, 

nor shall any person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the PRA unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

Executive Order 12866 

This notice has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

It has been determined that this notice 

does not contain policies with 

Federalism implications as that term is 

defined in Executive Order 13132. 

Administrative Procedure Act/ 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Prior notice and an opportunity for 

public comment are not required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other law for rules concerning public 

property, loans, grants, benefits, and 

contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because 

notice and opportunity for comment are 

not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or 

any other law, the analytical 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are 

inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis has not been 

prepared. 

Dated: October 27, 2010. 

Christopher C. Cartwright, 

Associate Assistant Administrator for 

Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services 

and Coastal Zone Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27702 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–830] 

Notice of Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 

Mexico 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Mexico. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

ArcelorMittal las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. 

(AMLT), an exporter of carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico, 

and pursuant to section 751(b) of the 

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

and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3), 

the Department is initiating a changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping order on carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico. 

Based on the information received, we 

preliminarily determine that AMLT is 

the successor-in-interest to Siderurgica 

Lazaro Cardenas las Truchas S.A. de 

C.V. (Sicartsa) for purposes of 

determining antidumping duty liability. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 3, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 

of AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th and Constitution 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
67686 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices 

1Petitioners are Georgetown Steel, Gerdau USA 

Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone 

Consolidated Industries Inc., Rocky Mountain Steel 

Mills, and Mittal Steel USA. 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6071. 

Background 

Sicartsa, as an exporter of carbon and 

certain steel alloy wire rod from Mexico 

to the United States, participated in the 

Department’s administrative reviews 

with respect to wire rod from Mexico for 

the periods April 10, 2002, to September 

30, 2003, and October 1, 2003, to 

September 30, 2004; the Department 

issued the final results of the reviews, 

giving Sicartsa a 1.06 percent margin, 

and a 1.26 percent margin, respectively. 

See Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 

Wire Rod From Mexico, 70 FR 25809 

(May 16, 2005); see also Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 

Mexico, 71 FR 27989 (May 15, 2006). 

On September 10, 2010, AMLT filed 

a request for a changed circumstances 

review claiming that Sicartsa changed 

its name to AMLT. AMLT requested that 

it receive the same antidumping duty 

treatment accorded to Sicartsa and 

submitted documentation in support of 

its claim. AMLT requested that the 

Department combine the notice of 

initiation of the review and the 

preliminary results of review in a single 

notice as this review essentially 

involves only corporate name changes. 

On October 6, 2010, petitioners 

submitted comments regarding AMLT’s 

September 10, 2010, request for a 

changed circumstances review.1 On 

October 6, 2010, the Department issued 

a questionnaire to AMLT regarding its 

September 10, 2010, submission. On 

October 18, 2010, AMLT submitted its 

questionnaire response. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is certain hot-rolled products of carbon 

steel and alloy steel, in coils, of 

approximately round cross section, 5.00 

mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm. in 

solid cross-sectional diameter. 

Specifically excluded are steel 

products possessing the above-noted 

physical characteristics and meeting the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) definitions for 

(a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high 

nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and 

(e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. 

Also excluded are (f) free machining 

steel products (i.e., products that 

contain by weight one or more of the 

following elements: 0.03 percent or 

more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of 

bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, 

more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, 

more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or 

more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). 

Also excluded from the scope are 

1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod 

and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire 

rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality 

rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire 

cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm 

or more but not more than 6.0 mm in 

cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an 

average partial decarburization of no 

more than 70 microns in depth 

(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 

having no non-deformable inclusions 

greater than 20 microns and no 

deformable inclusions greater than 35 

microns; (iv) having a carbon 

segregation per heat average of 3.0 or 

better using European Method NFA 04– 

114; (v) having a surface quality with no 

surface defects of a length greater than 

0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to 

a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or 

fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) 

containing by weight the following 

elements in the proportions shown: (1) 

0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less 

than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 

0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, 

of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 

percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not 

more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 

of copper, nickel and chromium. 

This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod 

is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire bead 

quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or 

more but not more than 7.0 mm in 

cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an 

average partial decarburization of no 

more than 70 microns in depth 

(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 

having no non-deformable inclusions 

greater than 20 microns and no 

deformable inclusions greater than 35 

microns; (iv) having a carbon 

segregation per heat average of 3.0 or 

better using European Method NFA 04– 

114; (v) having a surface quality with no 

surface defects of a length greater than 

0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to 

a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 

or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) 

containing by weight the following 

elements in the proportions shown: (1) 

0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less 

than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, 

(3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 

aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 

0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) 

either not more than 0.15 percent, in the 

aggregate, of copper, nickel and 

chromium (if chromium is not 

specified), or not more than 0.10 percent 

in the aggregate of copper and nickel 

and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 

percent (if chromium is specified). 

For purposes of the grade 1080 tire 

cord quality wire rod and the grade 

1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an 

inclusion will be considered to be 

deformable if its ratio of length 

(measured along the axis—that is, the 

direction of rolling—of the rod) over 

thickness (measured on the same 

inclusion in a direction perpendicular 

to the axis of the rod) is equal to or 

greater than three. The size of an 

inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns 

and 35 microns limitations is the 

measurement of the largest dimension 

observed on a longitudinal section 

measured in a direction perpendicular 

to the axis of the rod. This measurement 

methodology applies only to inclusions 

on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality 

wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire 

bead quality wire rod that are entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after July 24, 2003. 

The designation of the products as 

‘‘tire cord quality’’ or ‘‘tire bead quality’’ 

indicates the acceptability of the 

product for use in the production of tire 

cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other 

rubber reinforcement applications such 

as hose wire. These quality designations 

are presumed to indicate that these 

products are being used in tire cord, tire 

bead, and other rubber reinforcement 

applications, and such merchandise 

intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or 

other rubber reinforcement applications 

is not included in the scope. However, 

should the petitioners or other 

interested parties provide a reasonable 

basis to believe or suspect that there 

exists a pattern of importation of such 

products for other than those 

applications, end-use certification for 

the importation of such products may be 

required. Under such circumstances, 

only the importers of record would 

normally be required to certify the end 

use of the imported merchandise. 

All products meeting the physical 

description of subject merchandise that 

are not specifically excluded are 

included in this scope. 

The products subject to this order are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 

7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4500, 

7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 

7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 

7227.90.6010, and 7227.90.6080 of the 

HTSUS. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

proceeding is dispositive. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices 67687 

Initiation and Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review 

During 2007, Mittal Steel merged with 

Arcelor S.A. to form ArcelorMittal. The 

merger was finalized on November 13, 

2007. As part of the merger process, but 

prior to its formal completion, 

ArcelorMittal acquired 100 percent of 

Sicartsa. The acquisition was completed 

in April 2007. On February 25, 2008, 

Sicarsta changed its name to AMLT. On 

September 10, 2010, AMLT filed its 

changed circumstances review request 

in which it claimed that it is the 

successor-in-interest to Sicartsa. 

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the 

Act, the Department will conduct a 

changed circumstances review upon 

receipt of a request from an interested 

party or receipt of information 

concerning an antidumping duty order 

which shows changed circumstances 

sufficient to warrant a review of the 

order. On September 10, 2010, AMLT 

submitted its request for a changed 

circumstances review. With its request, 

AMLT submitted certain information 

related to its claim that Sicartsa changed 

its name to AMLT, and that this name 

change has not affected the company’s 

management, sales operations, supplier 

relationships or customer base in any 

meaningful way. In accordance with 

section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.216, the Department has determined 

that there is a sufficient basis to initiate 

a changed circumstances review to 

determine whether AMLT is the 

successor-in-interest to Sicartsa. 

In making a successor-in-interest 

determination in antidumping 

proceedings, the Department typically 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to: (1) Management; (2) 

production facilities; (3) supplier 

relationships, and (4) customer base. 

See, e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip from 

Canada: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 

20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) and 

Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate from Romania: Initiation and 

Preliminary Results of Changed 

Circumstances Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 22847 

(May 3, 2005) (Plate from Romania), 

unchanged in the Notice of Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from 

Romania, 70 FR 35624 (June 21, 2005). 

While no single factor or combination of 

factors will necessarily be dispositive, 

the Department generally will consider 

the new company to be the successor to 

the predecessor company if the resulting 

operations are essentially the same as 

those of the predecessor company. See, 

e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from 

Israel: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 

59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994), 

and Plate from Romania, 70 FR 22847. 

Thus, if the record evidence 

demonstrates that, with respect to the 

production and sale of the subject 

merchandise, the new company 

operates as the same business entity as 

the predecessor company, the 

Department may assign the new 

company the cash deposit rate of its 

predecessor. See, e.g., Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Fresh and 

Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway, 

75 FR 32370, 32371 (June 8, 2010), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(3)(i), we preliminarily 

determine that AMLT is the successorin-interest to Sicartsa. AMLT claims that 

the name change has not affected the 

company’s management, sales 

operations, supplier relationships, or 

customer base in a meaningful way. In 

its September 10, 2010, submission 

AMLT provided evidence supporting its 

claim. This documentation consists of: 

(1) An excerpt of the ArcelorMittal 2007 

Annual Report indicating that 

ArcelorMittal acquired 100 percent 

interest of Sicartsa prior to Sicartsa’s 

name change; (2) Sicartsa’s Stock 

Register indicating the completion of 

ArcelorMittal’s acquisition of Sicartsa; 

(3) Notary Public Office No.18 Federal 

District, Mexico certifying that Sicartsa 

changed its name to AMLT; (4) the 

articles of amendment that reflect the 

name change; and (5) a copy of an 

extraordinary shareholders’ meeting 

approving the name change. In its 

October 18, 2010, submission AMLT 

provided additional evidence 

supporting its claim that management 

structure, sales operations, supplier 

relationships, and customer base have 

not changed significantly. While there 

has been turnover with respect to 

several senior management positions 

over the course of the period 

corresponding to 2007, 2008, and 2010, 

the board members remained the same. 

See AMLT’s October 18, 2010, 

questionnaire response at Exhibit 1. The 

production operations also remained the 

same during the 2007, 2008, and 2010 

time period, which is evident through 

business licenses, utility bills and 

invoices. See AMLT’s October 18, 2010, 

questionnaire response at Exhibits 2, 3, 

and 4. Additionally, the suppliers for 

Sicartsa and AMLT, while not identical, 

overlap during the relevant time period 

to a degree that provides support for 

consistency in supplier base. See 

AMLT’s October 18, 2010, questionnaire 

response at Exhibits 8, 9, and 10 and the 

Memorandum to the File from Eric B. 

Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 3, 

Operations, ‘‘Analysis of Supplier and 

Customer Data’’ (October 25, 2010) 

(Supplier and Customer Data 

Memorandum), a business proprietary 

document of which the public version is 

on file in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU). The customers for Sicartsa and 

AMLT overlap to an even greater degree 

than the suppliers, which again 

provides consistency in the customer 

base. See AMLT’s October 18, 2010, 

questionnaire response at Exhibits 5, 6, 

and 7 and the Supplier and Customer 

Data Memorandum. 

The documentation described above 

demonstrates that there was little to no 

change in management structure, sales 

operations, supplier relationships, or 

customer base. For these reasons, we 

preliminarily find that AMLT is the 

successor-in-interest to Sicartsa and, 

thus, should receive the same 

antidumping duty treatment with 

respect to carbon and certain alloy steel 

wire rod from Mexico. 

When ‘‘expedited action is 

warranted,’’ the Department may 

publish the notice of initiation and 

preliminary determination concurrently. 

See 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii); see also 

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

from Italy: Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Changed 

Circumstances Review, 68 FR 13672 

(March 20, 2003), unchanged in 

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

from Italy: Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review, 68 FR 25327 

(May 12, 2003). The Department has 

determined that such action is 

warranted because AMLT has provided 

prima facie evidence that AMLT is the 

successor-in-interest, and we have the 

information necessary to make a 

preliminary finding already on the 

record. 

Based on the record evidence, we find 

that AMLT operates as the same 

business entity as Sicartsa. Thus, we 

preliminarily determine that AMLT is 

the successor-in-interest to Sicartsa. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Case briefs from interested parties may 

be submitted not later than 14 days after 

the date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues 

raised in those comments, may be filed 

not later than 21 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. All written 

comments shall be submitted in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
67688 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Any 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 14 days of publication of this 

notice. Any hearing, if requested, will 

be held no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of this notice, or the 

first workday thereafter. Persons 

interested in attending the hearing, if 

one is requested, should contact the 

Department for the date and time of the 

hearing. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.216(e), the Department will issue 

the final results of its antidumping duty 

changed circumstances review not later 

than 270 days after the date on which 

the review is initiated, or within 45 days 

if all parties agree to our preliminary 

results. 

During the course of this antidumping 

duty changed circumstances review, 

cash deposit requirements for the 

subject merchandise exported by AMLT 

will continue to be the all others rate 

established in the investigation. See 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, 

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 

2002). The cash deposit rate will be 

altered, if warranted, pursuant only to 

the final results of this review. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 

777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.216. 

Dated: October 27, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27783 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA014 

Pacific Fishery Management Council; 

Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council’s) Ad 

Hoc Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat 

Review Committee (EFHRC) will hold a 

work session, which is open to the 

public, to plan the periodic 5-year 

review of groundfish Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH). 

DATES: The work session will be held 

Monday, December 20, 2010 from 9 a.m. 

to 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The work session will be 

held at the Hyatt Place Hotel Portland 

Airport, 9750 NE Cascades Parkway, 

Portland, OR 97220, (503) 288–2808. 

Council Address: Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, 

OR 97220–1384. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Chuck Tracy, Staff Officer, Pacific 

Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (503) 820–2280. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the work session is to 

develop recommendations for the 

process and scope of the groundfish 

EFH periodic 5-year review, and for the 

role of the EFHRC in that review. 

Recommendations are tentatively 

scheduled to be presented to the 

Council at the April 2011 Council 

meeting in San Mateo, CA. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may 

come before the EFHRC for discussion, 

those issues may not be the subject of 

formal EFHRC action during this 

meeting. EFHRC action will be 

restricted to those issues specifically 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the EFHRC’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. 

Carolyn Porter at (503) 820–2280 at least 

5 days prior to the meeting date. 

Dated: October 29, 2010. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27744 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA007 

New England Fishery Management 

Council (NEFMC); Public Meeting; 

Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of correction to a public 

meeting; addition to agenda. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

hold a three-day meeting on Tuesday 

through Thursday, November 16–18, 

2010 to consider actions affecting New 

England fisheries in the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, 

November 16–18, starting at 8:30 a.m. 

each day. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Ocean Edge Resort, 2907 Main 

Street, Brewster, MA 02631–1946; 

telephone (508) 896–9000; fax: (508) 

896–9123. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

original notice published in the Federal 

Register on October 28, 2010 at 75 FR 

66357. 

Thursday, November 18, 2010 

The New England Fishery 

Management Council’s November 16–18 

agenda will occur as previously 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 28, 2010. On Thursday, 

November 18, 2010, however, the final 

day of the meeting, there will be an 

addition to the items the Council will 

address. Just prior to adjournment, the 

Council will receive a report from the 

Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee, during 

which the NEFMC is scheduled to 

approve management measures for this 

fishery for the 2011 fishing year. 

The spiny dogfish resource is 

managed jointly by the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, which 

recently set the annual quota and trip 

limits for the fishery for May 1, 2011– 

April 30, 2012. The New England 

Council will vote on the same issues 

and adjourn following discussion of any 

other outstanding Council business. 

Although other non-emergency issues 

not contained in this agenda may come 

before this Council for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subjects of formal 

action during this meeting. Council 

action will be restricted to those issues 

specifically listed in this notice and any 

issues arising after publication of this 

notice that require emergency action 

under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided that the public 

has been notified of the Council’s intent 

to take final action to address the 

emergency. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES