Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Germany: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review, 41435-41436 [2010-17427]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 136 / Friday, July 16, 2010 / Notices
average, must decrease by more than 15
percent. For this reason, the petition
does not meet the regulatory
requirements for certification for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Trade Adjustment Assistance for
Farmers Staff, FAS, USDA, by phone:
(202) 720–0638, or (202) 690–0633; or
by e-mail:
tradeadjustment@fas.usda.gov; or visit
the TAA for Farmers’ Web site: https://
www.fas.usda.gov/itp/taa.
Dated: July 8, 2010.
John D. Brewer,
Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–17344 Filed 7–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for clearance the following
proposal for collection of information
under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chap. 35).
Agency: United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO).
Title: Post Allowance and Refiling.
Form Number(s): PTO/SB/44/50/51/
51S/52/53/56 and PTOL–85B.
Agency Approval Number: 0651–
0033.
Type of Request: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Burden: 124,359 hours annually.
Number of Respondents: 217,184
responses per year.
Avg. Hours per Response: The USPTO
estimates that it will take the public
from approximately 12 minutes (0.20
hours) to 5 hours to gather the necessary
information, prepare the appropriate
form or other documents, and submit
the information in this collection to the
USPTO.
Needs and Uses: The USPTO is
required by 35 U.S.C. 131 and 151 to
examine applications and issue them as
patents when appropriate. The
applicant must then pay the required
issue fee to receive the patent and avoid
abandonment of the application. The
public uses this information collection
to pay fees for issuing patents, to request
corrections of errors in issued patents,
and to apply for reissue patents. This
collection previously included
information requirements related to
patent reexaminations. These items are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
being removed from this collection and
were approved by OMB in February
2010 as a separate new collection, 0651–
0064 Patent Reexaminations.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households; businesses or other forprofits; and not-for-profit institutions.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain benefits.
OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser,
e-mail: Nicholas_A._Fraser
@omb.eop.gov.
Once submitted, the request will be
publicly available in electronic format
through the Information Collection
Review page at https://www.reginfo.gov.
Paper copies can be obtained by:
• E-mail:
InformationCollection@uspto.gov.
Include ‘‘0651–0033 copy request’’ in the
subject line of the message.
• Fax: 571–273–0112, marked to the
attention of Susan K. Fawcett.
• Mail: Susan K. Fawcett, Records
Officer, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, United States Patent and
Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, VA 22313–1450.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent on
or before August 16, 2010 to Nicholas A.
Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via e-mail to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov, or by
fax to 202–395–5167, marked to the
attention of Nicholas A. Fraser.
Susan K. Fawcett,
Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–17367 Filed 7–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–428–801]
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From
Germany: Notice of Court Decision Not
in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 7, 2010, the United
States Court of International Trade
sustained the Department of
Commerce’s results of redetermination
on remand concerning the final results
of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on ball bearings
and parts thereof from Germany. See
SKF USA Inc., v. United States, Slip Op.
10–76 (CIT July 7, 2010). The
Department is now issuing this notice of
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41435
court decision not in harmony with the
Department of Commerce’s
determination.
DATES: Effective Date: July 16, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hermes Pinilla 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) 482–3477 or (202) 482–
4477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 11, 2008, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the final 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 for the period May 1, 2006,
through April 30, 2007. See 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, 73 FR 52823 (September 11, 2008).
SKF USA Inc., SKF France S.A., SKF
Aerospace France S.A.S., SKF GmbH,1
and SKF Industrie S.p.A filed a lawsuit
challenging certain aspects of the final
results. On December 21, 2009, the
United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) concluded that the
Department acted within its authority
and according to law in requesting costof-production (COP) data from SKF
Germany’s unaffiliated suppliers. See
SKF USA Inc., v. United States, 675 F.
Supp. 2d 1264 (CIT December 21, 2009)
(SKF Germany). The CIT also upheld the
Department’s decision to reject the COP
information submitted by SKF
Germany’s unaffiliated supplier as
untimely and to resort to facts otherwise
available. Specifically, the CIT stated
that ‘‘the Department has broad
authority to set, and extend, its
deadlines for submission of requested
information, but on the uncontested
facts of this case it acted within its
authority in deeming the COP data an
untimely submission.’’ See SKF
Germany, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1272–74.
The CIT held, however, that ‘‘{the
Department} acted contrary to law in
drawing an inference adverse for SKF
{Germany} upon the failure of the
unaffiliated supplier to make a timely
submission of the requested COP data’’
1 The CIT refers to the German company as ‘‘SKF
GmbH’’ in its decision. The Department refers to the
company as ‘‘SKF Germany’’ in its determination
and in this notice.
E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM
16JYN1
41436
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 136 / Friday, July 16, 2010 / Notices
currently being suspended pursuant to
the court’s injunction order in effect, the
Department does not need to order U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to
suspend liquidation of affected entries.
The Department will not order the
lifting of the suspension of liquidation
on applicable entries of ball bearings
and parts thereof from Germany made
during the review period before a court
decision in this lawsuit becomes final
and conclusive.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with section
516A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended.
Decision Not in Harmony
In SKF Germany, the CIT ruled that
the Department acted contrary to law in
drawing an inference adverse for SKF
Germany based upon the failure of an
unaffiliated supplier to make a timely
submission of the requested COP data
without a finding that SKF Germany
had failed to act to the best of its ability.
As a result of changes to calculations
in our remand results, the weightedaverage margin for SKF Germany for the
period May 1, 2006, through April 30,
2007, changed from 4.15 percent to 1.97
percent. Accordingly, absent an appeal
or, if appealed, upon a ‘‘conclusive’’
court decision, we will amend our final
results of this review to reflect the
recalculation of the margin for SKF
Germany.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
without a finding that SKF Germany
had failed to act to the best of its ability.
See SKF Germany, 675 F. Supp. 2d at
1268.
In its remand order, the CIT directed
the Department to ‘‘recalculate SKF
{Germany’s} margin after redetermining
the constructed value of the subject
merchandise SKF {Germany} obtained
from the unaffiliated supplier’’ using
information that is not adverse to SKF
Germany. See SKF Germany, 675 F.
Supp. 2d at 1278. In accordance with
the CIT’s remand order, the Department
filed its redetermination on remand of
the final results (remand results) on
March 16, 2010, in which the
Department recalculated the margin for
SKF Germany without use of an adverse
inference. On July 7, 2010, the CIT
affirmed the Department’s remand
results. See SKF USA Inc., v. United
States, Slip Op. 10–76 (CIT July 7,
2010).
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Suspension of Liquidation
The United States Court of Appeals
for Federal Circuit (CAFC) has held that
the Department must publish notice of
a decision of the CIT or the CAFC which
is not in harmony with the Department’s
determination. See The Timken
Company v. United States, 893 F.2d
337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Publication of
this notice fulfills that obligation. The
CAFC also held that, in such a case, the
Department must suspend liquidation
until there is a ‘‘conclusive’’ decision in
the action. Id. Therefore, the
Department must suspend liquidation
pending the expiration of the period to
appeal the CIT’s July 7, 2010, decision
or, if appealed, pending a final decision
of the CAFC.
Because entries of ball bearings and
parts thereof from Germany produced
by, exported to, or imported into the
United States by SKF Germany are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
Dated: July 12, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–17427 Filed 7–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 100625269–0269–02]
RIN 0648–XW94
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
Notice of 90–Day Finding on a Petition
to Revise Critical Habitat for the
Endangered Leatherback Sea Turtle
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 revise
critical habitat for the endangered
leatherback sea turtle under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find
that the petition does not present
substantial scientific information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted for leatherback sea
turtles and their habitat under our
jurisdiction.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis Klemm, NMFS, Southeast
Regional Office, Protected Resources
Division, dennis.klemm@noaa.gov,
(727)824–5312; or Marta Nammack,
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
marta.nammack@noaa.gov, (301)713
1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Background
On February 23, 2010, we received a
petition from the Sierra Club asking us
and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) to revise, pursuant to
the ESA, critical habitat for the
endangered leatherback sea turtle.
Under the ESA, NMFS and USFWS each
have respective areas of jurisdiction
over sea turtles, as clarified by the 1977
Memorandum of Understanding
Defining the Roles of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service in Joint
Administration of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 as to Marine
Turtles. NMFS has jurisdiction over sea
turtles and their associated habitats in
the marine environment, while USFWS
has jurisdiction when sea turtles are on
land. Thus, if Federal agencies are
involved in activities that may affect sea
turtles involved in nesting behavior, or
may affect their nests or their nesting
habitats, those Federal agencies are
required to consult with the USFWS
under section 7 of the ESA to ensure
that their activities are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the sea turtles. If a Federal action may
affect sea turtles while they are in the
marine environment, feeding and
migrating for example, the Federal
agency involved must engage in a
section 7 consultation with NMFS, to
ensure that the action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the sea turtles. Similarly, if critical
habitat has been designated, and Federal
actions may affect such habitat, an ESA
section 7 consultation would be
required to ensure that the Federal
action is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify the critical habitat; if
the habitat has been designated on land
the consultation would be with USFWS,
and if the habitat has been designated in
the marine environment, the
consultation would be with NMFS. This
90–day finding is responsive only to
aspects of the petition that fall under
our jurisdiction.
The portion of the petitioned critical
habitat that falls under NMFS’
jurisdiction is described in the petition
as: ‘‘the waters off the coastline of the
Northeast Ecological Corridor of Puerto
Rico, sufficient to protect leatherbacks
using the Northeast Ecological Corridor,
and extending at least to the hundred
fathom contour, or 9 nautical miles
offshore, whichever is further, and
including the existing marine
extensions of Espiritu Santo, Cabezas de
San Juan, and Arrecifes de la Cordillera
Nature Reserves.’’ The petition also
asserts that the beaches of the Northeast
Ecological Corridor of Puerto Rico
E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM
16JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 136 (Friday, July 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41435-41436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17427]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-801]
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Germany: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 7, 2010, the United States Court of International
Trade sustained the Department of Commerce's results of redetermination
on remand concerning the final results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from
Germany. See SKF USA Inc., v. United States, Slip Op. 10-76 (CIT July
7, 2010). The Department is now issuing this notice of court decision
not in harmony with the Department of Commerce's determination.
DATES: Effective Date: July 16, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla 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-
3477 or (202) 482-4477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 11, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the final 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 for the period May 1,
2006, through April 30, 2007. See 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, 73 FR 52823 (September 11, 2008). SKF USA Inc., SKF France S.A.,
SKF Aerospace France S.A.S., SKF GmbH,\1\ and SKF Industrie S.p.A filed
a lawsuit challenging certain aspects of the final results. On December
21, 2009, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT)
concluded that the Department acted within its authority and according
to law in requesting cost-of-production (COP) data from SKF Germany's
unaffiliated suppliers. See SKF USA Inc., v. United States, 675 F.
Supp. 2d 1264 (CIT December 21, 2009) (SKF Germany). The CIT also
upheld the Department's decision to reject the COP information
submitted by SKF Germany's unaffiliated supplier as untimely and to
resort to facts otherwise available. Specifically, the CIT stated that
``the Department has broad authority to set, and extend, its deadlines
for submission of requested information, but on the uncontested facts
of this case it acted within its authority in deeming the COP data an
untimely submission.'' See SKF Germany, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1272-74. The
CIT held, however, that ``{the Department{time} acted contrary to law
in drawing an inference adverse for SKF {Germany{time} upon the
failure of the unaffiliated supplier to make a timely submission of the
requested COP data''
[[Page 41436]]
without a finding that SKF Germany had failed to act to the best of its
ability. See SKF Germany, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The CIT refers to the German company as ``SKF GmbH'' in its
decision. The Department refers to the company as ``SKF Germany'' in
its determination and in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its remand order, the CIT directed the Department to
``recalculate SKF {Germany's{time} margin after redetermining the
constructed value of the subject merchandise SKF {Germany{time}
obtained from the unaffiliated supplier'' using information that is not
adverse to SKF Germany. See SKF Germany, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1278. In
accordance with the CIT's remand order, the Department filed its
redetermination on remand of the final results (remand results) on
March 16, 2010, in which the Department recalculated the margin for SKF
Germany without use of an adverse inference. On July 7, 2010, the CIT
affirmed the Department's remand results. See SKF USA Inc., v. United
States, Slip Op. 10-76 (CIT July 7, 2010).
Decision Not in Harmony
In SKF Germany, the CIT ruled that the Department acted contrary to
law in drawing an inference adverse for SKF Germany based upon the
failure of an unaffiliated supplier to make a timely submission of the
requested COP data without a finding that SKF Germany had failed to act
to the best of its ability.
As a result of changes to calculations in our remand results, the
weighted-average margin for SKF Germany for the period May 1, 2006,
through April 30, 2007, changed from 4.15 percent to 1.97 percent.
Accordingly, absent an appeal or, if appealed, upon a ``conclusive''
court decision, we will amend our final results of this review to
reflect the recalculation of the margin for SKF Germany.
Suspension of Liquidation
The United States Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit (CAFC) has
held that the Department must publish notice of a decision of the CIT
or the CAFC which is not in harmony with the Department's
determination. See The Timken Company v. United States, 893 F.2d 337,
341 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Publication of this notice fulfills that
obligation. The CAFC also held that, in such a case, the Department
must suspend liquidation until there is a ``conclusive'' decision in
the action. Id. Therefore, the Department must suspend liquidation
pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's July 7, 2010,
decision or, if appealed, pending a final decision of the CAFC.
Because entries of ball bearings and parts thereof from Germany
produced by, exported to, or imported into the United States by SKF
Germany are currently being suspended pursuant to the court's
injunction order in effect, the Department does not need to order U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of affected
entries. The Department will not order the lifting of the suspension of
liquidation on applicable entries of ball bearings and parts thereof
from Germany made during the review period before a court decision in
this lawsuit becomes final and conclusive.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
section 516A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Dated: July 12, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-17427 Filed 7-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P