Notices. Notice of availability and intent

8,928 words·~41 min read·/register/2006/01/19/06-538

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 12 Thursday, January 19, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Federal Invention Available for Licensing and Intent to Grant Exclusive License AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability and intent. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that U.S. Patent No. 6,018,063, “Biodegradable Oleic Estolide Ester Base Stocks and Lubricants”, issued on January 25, 2000, is available for licensing and that the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Peaks and Prairies, L.L.C. of Malta, Montana, an exclusive license to this invention. Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Peaks and Prairies, L.L.C. of Malta, Montana, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 6,316,649, “Biodegradable Oleic Estolide Ester Having Saturated Fatty Acid End Group Useful as Lubricant Base Stock”, issued on November 13, 2001.

Notice of Availability of this invention for licensing was published in the **Federal Register** on March 13, 2001. DATES: Comments must be received within ninety

(90)calendar days of the date of publication of this Notice in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights to these inventions are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license these inventions as Peaks and Prairies, L.L.C. of Malta, Montana has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within ninety

(90)days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Richard J. Brenner, Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-510 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Great River Energy, Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of finding of no significant impact. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Rural Utilities Service

(RUS)has made a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) in connection with potential impacts related to the construction and operation of a natural gas-fired simple cycle, combustion turbine power generation facility in Cambridge Township in Isanti County, Minnesota. The electrical output from the facility is expected to range from 170 megawatts

(MW)to 190 MW depending upon operating conditions. RUS may provide financial assistance for this project. FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nurul Islam, Environmental Protection Specialist, Engineering and Environmental Staff, Rural Development, Utilities Programs, Stop 1571, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1571, telephone:

(202)720-1414, FAX:

(202)720-0820; or e-mail: *nurul.islam@wdc.usda.gov.* ; or Mark Strohfus, Environmental Project Leader, GRE, 17845 East Highway 10, P.O. Box 800, Elk River, Minnesota 55330-0800, telephone

(763)241-2491, FAX:

(763)241-6033, e-mail: *MStrohfus@grenergy.com.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Great River Energy

(GRE)is proposing to construct a simple-cycle combustion turbine generation plant in Cambridge Township in Isanti County, Minnesota. Total electrical output is expected to range from 170 MW to 190 MW depending on operating conditions. An alternative site for the plant is also being proposed for the project. The alternative site location is at GRE's Elk River headquarters in Sherburne County, Minnesota. The Elk River site presently has a 40 MW facility fueled with refuse derived fuel and it would remain if the proposed plant were to be constructed at this alternative site. No additional land would be purchased if the plant were to be constructed at this location. Due to constraints on natural gas availability, a combustion turbine at the Elk River site would be equipped to fire fuel oil as a backup fuel. The generator would be connected to the Elk River Substation. Construction of the project at the proposed Cambridge site would necessitate upgrading approximately 47 miles of existing 69-kilovolt

(kV)transmission lines. Construction at the alternative Elk River site would necessitate upgrading approximately 27 miles of existing 69-kV transmission lines to allow the electricity from the new generator to be reliably delivered from the site. A fuel oil-fired combustion turbine rated at approximately 20 MW exists at the proposed Cambridge site and will remain in operation at the site after construction of the proposed combustion turbine. Additional land would be acquired to facilitate the proposed construction activities. The proposal at the Cambridge site would include upgrades to the existing substation at the Cambridge plant site. A 10-inch high pressure gas lateral pipeline approximately one-half mile long would be constructed to provide a natural gas fuel supply for the proposal. GRE prepared an environmental analysis for RUS that describes the proposal and assesses the proposal's environmental impacts. RUS has conducted an independent evaluation of the environmental analysis and believes that it accurately assesses the impacts of the proposal. This environmental analysis will serve as RUS' environmental assessment

(EA)of the project. The EA was distributed for public and agency review. Comments were received from two entities: the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)Region 5. The MNDOT commented that the project would not impact the local trunk highway system. The EPA commented that:

(1)The natural gas pipeline to be installed, owned and operated by a third party was not adequately addressed in the EA, and

(2)there should be stronger protective measures, including the consideration of third party oversight/inspection, where the proposal's transmission lines involve environmentally sensitive areas identified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). Construction of the natural gas pipeline must follow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC)National Environmental Policy Act requirements. RUS believes that adequate protective measures for the construction of the pipeline will be implemented through the FERC requirements. GRE has agreed to follow the recommendations of the MNDNR; therefore, RUS believes that adequate protective measures will be implemented in the environmentally sensitive areas. Since the MNDNR recommendations are being followed and the MNDNR did not suggest that third party oversight was necessary, RUS believes that third party oversight is not warranted. GRE published notices of the availability of the EA and solicited public comments per 7 CFR 1794.42. The 30-day comment period on the EA for the proposal ended January 6, 2006. Based on the EA, RUS has concluded that the proposal will not have a significant effect to various resources, including important farmland, floodplains, wetlands, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat, air, water quality and noise. RUS has also determined that there would be no negative impacts of the proposal on minority communities and low-income communities as a result of the proposal's construction. Any final action by RUS related to the proposal will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant Federal environmental laws and regulations and completion of environmental review procedures as prescribed by the 7 CFR part 1794, Environmental Policies and Procedures. Dated: January 11, 2006. James R. Newby, Assistant Administrator, Electric Program, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. E6-509 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request DOC has submitted 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. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* 2004 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, Wave 8 Topical Module. *Form Number(s):* SIPP/CAPI Automated Instrument; SIPP 24805(L) Director's Letter; SIPP 24003 Reminder Card. *Agency Approval Number:* 0607-0905. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 148,028 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 97,650. *Avg Hours per Response:* 30 Minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The U.S. Census Bureau requests authorization from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to conduct the Wave 8 topical module interview for the 2004 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). We also request approval for a few replacement questions in the reinterview instrument. The core SIPP and reinterview instruments were cleared under Authorization No. 0607-0905. The SIPP is designed as a continuing series of national panels of interviewed households that are introduced every few years, with each panel having durations of 3 to 5 years. The 2004 Panel is scheduled for five years and will include fifteen waves of interviewing. All household members 15 years old or over are interviewed a total of fifteen times (fifteen waves), at 4-month intervals, making the SIPP a longitudinal survey. The survey is molded around a central “core” of labor force and income questions that remain fixed throughout the life of a panel. The core is supplemented with questions designed to answer specific needs. These supplemental questions are included with the core and are referred to as “topical modules.” The topical module for the 2004 Panel Wave 8 is Welfare Reform. The Welfare Reform topical module was last conducted in the SIPP 2001 Panel Wave 8 instrument. Wave 8 interviews will be conducted from June 2006 through September 2006. Data provided by the SIPP are being used by economic policymakers, the Congress, State and local governments, and Federal agencies that administer social welfare or transfer payment programs, such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. The SIPP represents a source of information for a wide variety of topics and allows information for separate topics to be integrated to form a single and unified database so that the interaction between tax, transfer, and other government and private policies can be examined. Government domestic policy formulators depend heavily upon the SIPP information concerning the distribution of income received directly as money or indirectly as in-kind benefits and the effect of tax and transfer programs on this distribution. They also need improved and expanded data on the income and general economic and financial situation of the U.S. population. The SIPP has provided these kinds of data on a continuing basis since 1983, permitting levels of economic well-being and changes in these levels to be measured over time. Monetary incentives to encourage non-respondents to participate is planned for all waves of the 2004 SIPP Panel. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* Every 4 months. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C., Section 182. *OMB Desk Officer:* Susan Schechter,

(202)395-5103. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dhynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Susan Schechter, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *susan_schechter@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: January 12, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-526 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904; NAFTA Panel Reviews; Request for Panel Review AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of first request for panel review. SUMMARY: On January 11, 2006, Tembec Inc., Aspen Planers Ltd., Downie Timber Ltd., Federated Co-operatives Ltd., Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd., Haida Forest Products Ltd., Kenora Forest Products Ltd., Lecours Lumber Co. Ltd., Liskeard Lumber Co. Ltd., Midway Lumber Mills Ltd., Mill & Timber Products Ltd., Nickel Lake Lumber, North Enderby Distribution Ltd., North Enderby Timber Ltd., Olav Haavaldsrud Timber Co. Ltd., Ontario Forest Industries Association and its members, Ontario Lumber Manufacturers Association and its members, R. Fryer Forest Products Ltd., Selkirk Specialty Wood Ltd., Tall Tree Lumber Co., and Tyee Timber Products Ltd. (collectively, “the Plaintiffs”) filed a First Request for Panel Review with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Seventeen additional Requests for Panel Review were filed on January 11, 2006 on behalf of Dunkley Lumber Ltd.; Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. (“ACI”), Abitibi-Consolidated Company of Canada (“ACCC”), Produits Forestiers Petits Paris Inc. (“PFPP”), Produits Forestiers La Tuque Inc. (“PFLT”), Produits Forestiers Saguenay Inc. (“PFS”), Societe en Commandite Opitciwan (“Opitciwan”), Gestofor_Inc., Scieries Saguenay Ltee., and Abitibi-LP Engineered Wood Inc.; the British Columbia Lumber Trade Council and its constituent associations: The Coast Forest & Lumber Association and the Council of Forest Industries; Weyerhaeuser Company; International Forest Products, Ltd. (“Interfor”); the Canadian Lumber Remanufacturers’ Alliance (“CLRA”), and each of its individual members: Alpha Lumber Mills Inc., American Bayridge Corporation, Bois Neos Inc., Brittania Lumber Company Limited, Falcon Lumber Limited, Finmac Lumber Limited, Great Lakes MSR Lumber Ltd., Hughes Lumber Specialties Inc., Les Bois d'Oeuvre Beaudoin & Gauthier Inc., Mid America Lumber, Monterra Lumber Mills Limited, Nicholson and Cates Limited, Palliser Lumber Sales Ltd., Phoenix Forest Products Inc., Weston Forest Corp.; Buchanan Lumber Sales Inc., and the Buchanan affiliated mills, exporters and importers, and other affiliates, including Atikokan Forest Products Ltd.; Buchanan Forest Products Ltd.; Buchanan Northern Hardwoods Inc.; Long Lake Forest Products Inc. (including the Nakina division (Nakina Forest Products)); Buchanan Distribution Inc.; Great West Timber Limited; Dubreuil Forest Products Limited; Northern Sawmills Inc.; McKenzie Forest Products Inc.; and Solid Wood Products Inc.; Leggett & Platt Canada Co., Leggett & Platt Ltd., Leggett & Platt (B.C.) Ltd., and Leggett & Platt, Inc. and Pleasant Valley Remanufacturing Ltd.; West Fraser Mills, Ltd.; Doman Industries Limited, Doman Forest Products Limited, and Doman Western Lumber Ltd. (now doing business as Western Forest Products Inc. and its subsidiaries); Weldwood of Canada Limited; Tolko Industries Ltd. and its affiliates, Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd., Compwood Products Ltd., and Pinnacle Wood Products Ltd.; Millar Western Forest Products Ltd.; Riverside Forest Products Ltd.; Lignum Ltd.; Bowater Incorporated and Its Canadian Subsidiaries, Principally Bowater Canadian Forest Products Incorporated; Quebec Lumber Manufacturers Association (“QLMA”) and certain Quebec lumber producers, including: Clermond Hamel Ltee; Carrier & Begin Inc.; Gerard Crete et Fils Inc.; P. Proulx Forest Products Inc. (also known as Proulx, Proulx Forest Products Inc., and Produits Forestiers P. Proulx Inc.); Marcel Lauzon Inc.; Groupe Lebel; Lulumco Inc.; Industries Maibec Inc. (also known as Maibec Industries Inc.); Les Produits Forestiers D.G. Ltee.; Les Produits Forestiers Portbec Ltee. (also known as Portbec Forest Products Ltd.); Les Chantiers de Chibougamau Ltee.; Industries G.D.S. Inc.; G.D.S. Valoribois Inc.; Bois Marsoui G.D.S. Inc.; Bois Granval G.D.S. Inc.; Promobois G.D.S. Inc.; Paul Valee Inc.; Bois d'oeuvre Cedrico Inc. (also known as Cedrico Lumber Inc.); Scierie Lemay Inc.; Scierie Gauthier Ltee.; Industries Perron Inc.; Fenclo Ltee.; Barrette-Chapais Ltee.; Blanchette et Blanchette Inc.; Scierie Norbois Inc.; Les Scieries du Lac St.-Jean Inc.; Bois de l'est F.B. Inc.; Domtar Inc.; Arbec Forest Products Inc.; Uniforet Inc.; Uniforet Scierie-Pate; Bois Kheops Inc.; Les Produits Forestiers F.B.M. Inc.; Les Produits Forestiers Maxibois Inc.; Careau Bois Inc.; Les Produits Forestiers Dube Inc.; Armand Duhamel & Fils Inc.; Precibois Inc.; Byrnexco Inc.; Optibois Inc.; Max Meilleur et Fils Ltee.; Materiau Blanchet Inc.; Bois Cobodex

(1995)Inc.; Bois Nor Que Wood Inc.; Produits Forestiers Berscifor Inc.; Boscus Canada Inc.; Rembos Inc.; Les Produits Forestiers Miradas Inc.; Scierie Alexandre Lemay et Fils Ltee.; Les Bois S.& P. Grondin Inc.; Wilfrid Paquet & Fils Ltee.; Beaubois Coaticook Inc.; Scierie Landrienne Inc.; Domexport, Inc.; Kruger, Inc.; Scierie Gallichan Inc.; Fontaine Inc. (doing business as J.A. Fontaine et fils Incorporee), Bois Fontaine, Gestion Natanis Inc., Les Placements Jean-Paul Fontaine Ltee.; Commonwealth Plywood Company Ltd. doing business as Bois Clo-Val (formerly Bois Clo-Val Inc.), and Les Enterprises Atlas (formerly Les Enterprises Atlas

(1985)Inc.); Scierie Nord-Sud Inc. (also known as North-South Sawmill Inc.); Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc.; and Bardeaux et Cedres St-Honore Inc. (also known as Bardeaux et Cedres), respectively. Panel review was requested of the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review made by the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, respecting Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada. This determination was published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 73437), on December 12, 2005. The NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case Number USA-CDA-2006-1904-01 to this request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,

(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination. Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews* (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the **Federal Register** on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on January 11, 2006, requesting panel review of the final determination described above. The Rules provide that:

(a)A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is February 10, 2006);

(b)A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is February 27, 2006); and

(c)The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review. Dated: January 12, 2006. Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E6-530 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel Reviews; Request for Panel Review AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of first request for panel review. SUMMARY: On January 11, 2006, Aspen Planers Ltd., Buchanan Lumber Sales Inc. and the Buchanan affiliated mills, Downie Timber Ltd. Federated Co-operatives Ltd., Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd., Haida Forest Products Ltd., Kenora Forest Products Ltd., Lecours Lumber Co. Ltd., Liskeard Lumber Ltd., Manitou Forest Products Ltd., Midway Lumber Mills Ltd., Mill & Timber Products Ltd., Nickel Lake Lumber, North Enderby Distribution Ltd., North Enderby Timber Ltd., Olav Haavaldsrud Timber Co. Ltd., R. Fryer Forest Products Ltd., Selkirk Specialty Wood Ltd., Tall Tree Lumber Co., Tembec Inc., and Tyee Timber Products Ltd. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a First Request for Panel Review with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. A second, third and fourth Request for Panel Review was filed on January 11, 2006 on behalf of the Canadian Lumber Remanufacturers' Alliance (“CLRA”) and each of its individual members: Alpha Lumber Mills Inc., American Bayridge Corporation, Bois Neos Inc., Brittania Lumber Company Limited, Falcon Lumber Limited, Finmac Lumber Limited, Great Lakes MSR Lumber Ltd., Hughes Lumber Specialties Inc., Les Bois d'Oeuvre Beaudoin & Gauthier Inc., Mid America Lumber, Monterra Lumber Mills Limited, Nicholson and Cates Limited, Palliser Lumber Sales Ltd., Phoenix Forest Products Inc., and Weston Forest Corp.; the Government of Canada, the Governments of the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, the Gouvernement du Quebec, the Governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, the British Columbia Lumber Trade Council and its constituent associations (The Coast Forest & Lumber Association and the Council of Forest Industries), the Ontario Forest Industries Association, the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers Association, and the Quebec Lumber Manufacturers Association; and Bois Daaquam Inc., Bois Omega Limitee, Fontaine Inc. (also known as J.A. Fontaine et fils incorporee), Maibec Industries Inc., Materaiux Blanchet, St. Pamphile, and Scierie West Brome Inc., respectively. Panel review was requested of the final results of the countervailing duty administrative review made by the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, respecting Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada. This determination was published in the **Federal Register** , (70 FR 73448) on December 12, 2005. The NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case Number USA-CDA-2006-1904-02 to this request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,

(CCSP)Product Development Committee

(CPDC)for Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1 AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Climate Change Science Program

(CCSP)Product Development Committee for Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1 (CPDC—S&A 1.1) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated October 7, 2005. CPDC—S&A 1.1 is the Federal Advisory Committee charged with responsibility to develop a draft Synthesis and Assessment Product that addresses CCSP Topic 1.1: “Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere—steps for understanding and reconciling differences”. *Time and Date:* The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 8, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Thursday, February 9, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Refer to the Web page *http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/ccsp/11.html* for the most up-to-date meeting agenda. *Place:* The meeting will be held both days at the Hilton Chicago O'Hare Airport, Chicago, Illinois, 60666. *Status:* The meeting will be open to public participation with a 60-minute public comment period on February 8 from 8:15 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. (check Web site to confirm this time). The CPDC—S&A 1.1 expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five

(5)minutes. Written comments (at least 35 copies) should be received by the CPDC—S&A 1.1 Designated Federal Official by February 1, 2006 to provide sufficient time for review. Written comments received after February 1 will be distributed to the CPDC—S&A 1.1, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. *Matters To Be Considered:* The meeting will include the following topics:

(1)Resolution of public comments received on the 2nd Draft of Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1

(2)Discussion of plans for completion and submission of 3rd Draft of Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1 to the CCSP Interagency Committee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Miller, Designated Federal Official, CPDC—S&A 1.1 (NOAA Climate Program Office, 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1210, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Phone: 301-427-2376, Fax: 301-427-2073, E-mail: *Christopher.D.Miller@noaa.gov),* or visit the Web site at *http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/ccsp/11.html.* Dated: January 10, 2006. Mark Brown, Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E6-513 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 122205A] Endangered Species; Permit No. 1266-02 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; modification of scientific research permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that John Glass, (Principal Investigator), REMSA, Inc., 124 West Queens Way, Hampton, Virginia 23669 has been issued a modification to scientific research Permit No. 1266-01. ADDRESSES: The modification and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289, fax (301)427-2521; Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9200; fax (978)281-9371; and Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Hubard or Amy Hapeman, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the provisions of 50 CFR 222.306 of the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened fish and wildlife (50 CFR parts 222-226). The modification extends the expiration date of the permit from April 30, 2006, to April 30, 2007, for takes of leatherback ( *Dermochelys coriacea* ), green ( *Chelonia mydas* ), loggerhead ( *Caretta caretta* ), hawksbill ( *Eretmochelys imbricata* ) and Kemp's ridley ( *Lepidochelys kempii* ) sea turtles. The permit allows REMSA, Inc. to conduct sea turtle abundance and relocation trawling activities in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredging projects in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico for scientific research and enhancement purposes. Issuance of this modification, as required by the ESA was based on a finding that such permit:

(1)was applied for in good faith;

(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of any threatened and endangered species; and

(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: January 11, 2006. Steve Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-589 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 120605C] Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS); Specification of Requirements for Mobile Communications Service Provider

(MCSP)Type Approval AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; revision of type approval requirements. SUMMARY: This document provides notice of type approval requirements for a Mobile Communications Service Provider

(MCSP)to be authorized for use by any vessel participating in the NOAA Vessel Monitoring Systems

(VMS)program. Vessels participating in VMS programs must acquire an Office for Law Enforcement - approved mobile transceiver unit

(MTU)and use an authorized MCSP to comply with the standards set forth in NMFS rules requiring the use of VMS. ADDRESSES: To obtain copies of the list of NOAA-approved VMS MTU and VMS MCSPs, or to obtain information regarding the status of VMS systems being evaluated by NOAA, write to NOAA Fisheries, Office for Law Enforcement (OLE), 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 415, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For current listing information contact Mark Oswell, Outreach Specialist, or for questions regarding VMS installation and status of evaluations contact Jonathan Pinkerton, National VMS Program Manager by phone: 301-427-2300 or by fax: 301-427-2055. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice supersedes all previous notices on MCSP type approval requirements. Previously approved MCSPs must comply with the requirements of this notice within 120 days of the publication date of this notice. Background The OLE maintains MCSP requirement specifications as an OLE national directive. This document sets prerequisite standards for the purpose of carrier qualification, which an MCSP must meet before it is permitted to be used in an OLE VMS. Vessels participating in VMS programs must use an OLE-qualified MSCP to comply with NMFS rules requiring the use of VMS. An MCSP is an operator of a mobile communications service used to provide wireless connectivity between mobile platforms (such as vessels, trucks, and people) and fixed platforms (such as offices and buildings). In VMS, the MCSP enables location transmission and two-way message exchange between OLE and the vessel when using an onboard MCSP-compatible MTU. (Note: Standards for the MTU are written in the complementary directive titled Mobile Transceiver Unit Specification of Requirements.) Goal OLE seeks to deploy an “open system,” whereby fishing industry participants may select from a variety of suppliers that qualify and have been approved to participate in VMS programs. Fishermen must comply with their Federal fishery regulations regarding VMS and therefore may be cited for a violation and held accountable for monitoring anomalies not attributable to faults in the MCSP or MTU. Therefore, type approval is essential to establish and maintain uniformly high system integrity. By this notice, OLE seeks to approve reliable, robust, and secure MCSP services and thereby create and maintain a VMS meeting the requirement of high integrity. Specific VMS programs are created to support particular NMFS rules requiring the use of VMS, which typically are designed to manage or protect fish and other marine species within designated areas. Process Based on a request for carrier qualification from a candidate MCSP, OLE will conduct a thorough evaluation and then issue a statement to accept or deny the carrier qualification of an MCSP. The MCSP must meet the minimal national VMS standards, as required by this notice, and the requirements of the specific fisheries for which approval is sought. MCSP providers are encouraged to review the national VMS standards and Federal regulations for the fishery of interest prior to submitting a request for approval. Upon successful demonstration of compliance to the standards set forth in this directive, OLE will issue a MCSP carrier qualification for a particular communications class applicable to one or more VMS operations targeting particular fisheries. A class refers to the medium, protocol, and frequency of the mobile communications technology. OLE approval will not necessarily result in NMFS procurement of MCSP services. Instead, OLE will request a fact sheet from the MCSP to provide information to the fishing industry that includes at minimum, value-added services, account activation procedures, and pricing plans. This will allow fishermen to make purchase decisions that are compatible with the VMS standards and their individual needs. Purchasing strategies will also be determined on a per fishery implementation basis. Initiation OLE will initiate the MCSP carrier qualification process upon written request from the provider, subject to the demonstration of compliance with this notice and the availability of test units. The provider, or requestor for carrier qualification, may be the company, systems integrator, distributor, and/or value-added reseller, etc., acting within the constraints of its agreement with the underlying communications company. Consideration will be given to an MCSP that has already passed a comparable carrier qualification process in a foreign fisheries management effort. If applicable, the provider should provide the MCSP's identifying characteristics, the details of foreign VMS requirement specifications, the MCSP's level of compliance, and appropriate contact details of the qualifying authorities. OLE also will consider qualifying an MCSP which resells, packages, or integrates communication services from an MCSP that already received OLE carrier qualification under this notice. Interoperability An MCSP seeking carrier qualification within a particular communications class for VMS must demonstrate that it meets the standards when using at least one type approved MTU within that same class. Establishment of the standards in thisDirective are intended to ensure that carrier qualification for a particular MCSP will permit its interoperability with all approved MTU within its same class. To best promote interoperability within a class, MTU and MCSP acceptance standards are outlined in separate directives. However, concurrent with this approval process for an MCSP, the approval for a same-class MTU must be either in place or pending. Data received at OLE from the MCSP must be in a secure and encrypted format compatible with OLE tracking software. Submission A provider requesting MCSP type approval shall begin by describing in detail the extent to which the MCSP complies with each of the requirements set forth within this directive. The provider, or requestor for type approval, must provide OLE with one in-class MTU and the required communications service for each of the fisheries for which approval is desired for a 90- day test and approval period. The supplier must also provide thorough MTU documentation, including fact sheets, installation guides, operator manuals, user handbooks, the applicable interfacing software, and technical support. OLE shall review the submissions against the criteria of this directive. Next, OLE shall perform field test and sea trials. To accomplish this, OLE will coordinate test conditions with volunteer and/or contract fishing vessels. These tests may involve demonstrating every aspect of MCSP operation, including programming a registered MTU, location tracking, messaging, and troubleshooting procedures. Submit requests for type approval, along with hard and soft copies of support material to: U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; Office for Law Enforcement; Attention: Vessel Monitoring System Program; 8484 Georgia Ave. Suite 415; Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA; voice 301-427-2300, fax 301-427-2055. Litigation Support Due to the use of VMS for law enforcement, all technical aspects of a provider's submission are subject to being admitted as evidence in a court of law, if needed. The reliability of all technologies utilized in the MCSP may be analyzed in court for, inter alia, testing procedures, error rates, peer review, and general industry acceptance. Further, the provider may be required to provide technical and expert support for litigation to support the MCSP capabilities and establish OLE's case against violators. If the technologies have previously been subject to such scrutiny in a court of law, the provider should describe the evidence and any court finding on the reliability of the technology. Additionally, to maintain the integrity of VMS for fisheries management, the provider will be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement limiting the release of certain information that might compromise either the confidentiality of fishermen's personally identifying information, proprietary fishing data, such as vessel positions, or the effectiveness of the VMS operations, such as details of security procedures. The provider shall include a statement confirming its agreement with these conditions. Change Control Once qualified, it is the responsibility of the MCSP to notify OLE of any change in its submission, such as a change affecting interconnect facilities, geographic coverage, performance characteristics, or customer support contacts. OLE reserves the right to reconsider and revoke the MCSP approval if, as a result of the change, the MCSP no longer satisfies the requirement. Requests for Approval Requestors must respond to each of the items listed in sections 1 through 10 of this document and any applicable attachments. The response should indicate how the MCSP complies with the requirement referred to in the item. Items that the MCSP does not currently comply with must be responded to by explaining how the MCSP will comply with the requirement prior to approval. Section 1. Identifiers The MCSP must provide the following specifications and identifying characteristics: 1.1.1. Communications class, including medium, protocol, and frequency of the mobile communications technology. 1.1.2. Trade name of the service. 1.1.3. Company name. 1.1.4. Corporate headquarters. 1.1.5. Principal business. 1.1.6. Parent and subsidiary companies, if applicable. 1.1.7. Name and locations of principal terrestrial facilities, e.g., downlinks, gateways, switches, and operation centers. 1.2 MCSP must support at least one MTU approved for use in the fishery desired unless the request is made bundled with a new MTU. If the request is made bundled with an MTU, approval of the MCSP will be contingent upon the approval of the MTU. MCSP ireless facilities must also have the following characteristics as applicable: 1.2.1. *Satellite:* MCSP must provide adequate orbit types, constellation size, and coverage footprint to provide comprehensive coverage of the VMS fishery for which application is made 1.2.2. *Cellular:* MCSP must provide adequate coverage footprints, tower distribution density, tower locations, and protocols required to provide comprehensive coverage of the VMS fishery for which application is made. 1.2.3. *Radio:* MCSP must provide adequate coast stations, locations, antennas, and antenna size to provide comprehensive coverage of the VMS fishery for which application is made. 1.2.4. Approved or pending approval MTU(s) supported. 1.3 For the following technical responsibilities, name the business entities, including the MCSP and other parties, who perform the following functions. Include the business mailing address, contact name(s), telephone number, fax number, email addresses. 1.3.1. Operate principal terrestrial facilities. 1.3.2. Operate principal wireless facilities. 1.4 For the following commercial responsibilities, name the business entities, including the MCSP and other parties, who perform the following functions for US customers. Include the business mailing address, contact name(s), telephone number, fax number, email addresses. Designate the US geographic territory or market sector where applicable. 1.4.1. Direct sales. 1.4.2. Indirect/distributor/channel sales. 1.4.3. Billing. 1.4.4. Account management. 1.4.5. Customer service. 1.4.6. Technical support. 1.4.7. Public affairs. 1.4.8. Advertising. Section 2. Messaging The MCSP shall be capable of communications that support the following messaging functions: 2.1. Ability to transmit multiple message types: 2.1.1. Automatically generated position reports. 2.1.2. Event-driven position reports. 2.1.3. Safety and distress alerts and messages. 2.1.4. Email text messages. 2.1.5. Ability to remotely create new message-types. 2.1.6. Email forms. 2.2. Ability to provide comprehensive and transparent communications, which function uniformly within the entire area of the geographic coverage area for the particular communications class. 2.3. Ability to perform two-way messaging. 2.4. Ability for OLE to initiate communications to vessels, either individually or by originator-defined groups of vessels. Section 3. Position Data Formats and Transmission 3.1. An MCSP should support an MTU's ability to transmit automatically-generated position reports that contain the following: 3.1.1. Position fix latitude and longitude, including the hemisphere of each. 3.1.2. The precision of the position fix shall be to the decimal minute hundredths. 3.1.3. Accuracy of the position fix must be within 100 meters, unless otherwise indicated by an existing regulation or FMP requirement. 3.1.4. Unique identification of an MTU within the communications class. 3.1.5. Date (year/month/day with century in the year) and time

(GMT)stamp of the position fix. 3.1.6. Date (year/month/day with century in the year) and time

(GMT)when the position report is received at the MCSP. 3.1.7. Date (year/month/day with century in the year) and time

(GMT)stamp when the position report is sent to OLE. 3.1.8. MTU status information, such as configuration of programming and reporting intervals, power save modes, antenna disconnection, and power-up/power down, and loss of positioning signal. Section 4. Special Identified Position Reports 4.1. In addition to automatically generated position reports, support the MTU's ability to transmit specially identified position reports. If the MTU is unable to transmit status upon the occurrence of these events below, then the specially identified position reports are transmitted when its ability to transmit is reestablished. 4.1.1. Loss of the positioning reference signals. 4.1.2. Loss of the mobile communications signals. 4.1.3. Security events and other status data. 4.1.4. The vessel crossing a predefined geographic boundary. 4.1.5. Automatically generated position reports sent to OLE from the MCSP must be in a format compatible with OLE monitoring software. Section 5. Queries 5.1. The MCSP shall allow the initiation of queries to extract information from single and multiple vessels to satisfy the following criteria: 5.1.1. A query addressed to an individual vessel or a group of vessels. The group of vessels may be comprised of: 5.1.1.1. Vessels presently located within a geographic area (for example, defined by a circle or a rectangle, used by Coast Guard for search and rescue coordination); 5.1.1.2. Vessels that are members of an OLE-defined logical grouping (For example, grouped by fish type, gear type, or region of home port); 5.1.1.3. Queries are for the following: 5.1.1.3.1. Reprogramming or reconfiguring position reporting features. 5.1.1.3.2. Determining current position. 5.1.1.3.3. Extracting feature states, such as sensor status. Section 6. Position Intervals 6.1. The MCSP must support the ability to determine the position of an MTU at fixed, programmable reporting intervals between 5 minutes and 24 hours. Section 7. Latency 7.1. The MCSP must meet latency requirements from 5 minutes or less (near real time) to 3 hours (store and forward) between the time a position is fixed and the time it is received in OLE. Section 8. Terrestrial Connectivity 8.1. The OLE VMS program supports multiple VMS rules with incoming data from many vessels that may be using different MTUs within a communications class, or multiple classes. VMS receives data in a class-native format from the MCSP at the appropriate VMS monitoring center in an OLE-standard format. For approval a MCSP must be capable of delivering information from all its within-class subscribers to OLE in a format and protocol compatible with OLE equipment and software facilities. The MCSP must provide: 8.1.1. Redundancy of terrestrial facilities and network connectivity between MCSP and OLE, such that backup circuits or alternate network types automatically replace the primary in the event of failure without any manual intervention. 8.1.2. Two-way communications for delivery and acceptance of data from MCSP to OLE and back, supporting messages, position reports, queries and administrative functions. 8.1.3. Auto-forwarding or auto-delivery of messages without the need for retrieval by OLE. 8.1.4. Geographically transparent communications from OLE to the MTU, such that OLE seamlessly performs communication functions without a need to take additional steps to accommodate the geographic region where the vessel is fishing. 8.1.5. Latency at 5 minutes or less (near real time) for 95 percent of transmissions for two-way messaging between the MCSP and OLE. 8.1.6. Communications between the MCSP and OLE must be provided along secure encrypted channels. The MCSP must provide reasonable mechanisms to prevent: 8.1.6.1. Tampering or interception, including the reading of passwords and data. 8.1.6.2. Interception and “sniffing” during transmission from the MCSP to OLE via either wireless or terrestrial facilities. 8.1.6.3. Spoofing, whereby one MTU is fraudulently identifying itself as another MTU. 8.1.6.4. Modification of MTU identification. 8.1.6.5. Interference with Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) or other safety/distress functionalities. 8.1.6.6. Introduction of viruses that may corrupt the messages, transmission, or the VMS system. Section 9. Wireless Connectivity 9.1. The MCSP shall have the following wireless connectivity features: 9.1.1. Redundancy of wireless facilities and network connectivity between MTU and OLE, such that backup circuits or alternate network types automatically replace the primary in the event of failure without any manual intervention. 9.1.2. Geographically transparent communications to and from OLE and the MTU, such that OLE seamlessly performs communication functions without a need to take additional steps to accommodate the geographic region where the vessel is fishing. 9.1.3. Durability and reliability in a marine environment, without signal degradation or other loss of integrity from adverse meteorological conditions. 9.2. Communications between MCSP and MTU must be secure from tampering or interception, including the reading of passwords and data. The MCSP must provide reasonable mechanisms to prevent: 9.2.1. Interception and “sniffing” during transmission to and from the MCSP and MTU via either wireless or terrestrial facilities. 9.2.2. Spoofing, whereby one MTU is fraudulently identifying itself as another MTU. 9.2.3. Modification of MTU identification. 9.2.4. Interference with GMDSS or other safety/distress functionalities. 9.2.5. Introduction of viruses that may corrupt the messages, transmission, or the VMS system. Section 10. Customer Service 10.1 The MCSP and its designated entities shall provide customer service that is professional, courteous, and responsive. 10.2 The MCSP must have security measures, user authentication, request validation and non-disclosure policies to prevent unauthorized access to the content of reports or other manual interference. The following requirements must be included: 10.2.1. Prevent unauthorized access to data and configuration information by MCSP employees and third parties. 10.2.2. Authorize fishermen access to account info and to enhance the MTU configuration for personal messages, if they pay for the costs of personal messages and configuration changes do not affect the integrity of VMS operations. 10.2.3. Send the MTU email, poll or remotely reconfigure the MTU for position reporting changes upon OLE request. 10.2.4. Keep an audit trail of actions taken by Customer Service. 10.3. MCSP security procedures must support above services whether the access or configuration change is applied to a single MTU or a group of MTUs. 10.4. Service level agreements must clarify constraints, if any, on the geographic territory, personnel availability, and escalation procedures for problem resolution covered by such services. 10.5. Assist in the resolution of communications anomalies, such as data loss, message corruption, and reporting gaps including helping to determine the cause of the problem. 10.6. Provide and documented MTU commissioning procedures for US vessels. 10.7. Provide and documented account and service activation procedures. 10.8. Provide documented and secure MTU configuration strategy or procedures for vessels monitored singly or grouped by fleet. 10.9. All personally identifying information provided by vessels owners or other authorized personnel for the purpose of purchase or activation of MCSP services, or for the participation in any NMFS VMS-approved fishery must be protected from unauthorized disclosure. Personally identifying information includes, but is not limited to, names, addresses, telephone numbers, social security account numbers, credit card numbers, vessel names, federal, state, and local documentation numbers, e-mail addresses, and crew lists. Any information sent electronically to the OLE must be transmitted by a secure means that prevents interception, spoofing, or viewing by unauthorized individuals. Any release of such information must be requested and approved in writing by the vessel owner or authorized personnel, or the OLE. Inadvertent or intentional unauthorized release of personally identifying information will be grounds for reconsideration and possible revocation of the type approval for any offending MCSP. Dated: January 13, 2006. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-588 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Request for Public Comments on Revoking a Commercial Availability Designation under the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) and the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) January 17, 2006. AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Request for public comments concerning a request for a revocation of a CITA designation under the CBTPA and the ATPDEA regarding certain compacted, plied, ring spun cotton yarns. SUMMARY: On January 10, 2006 the Chairman of CITA received a petition from The National Council of Textiles Organizations (NCTO), alleging that a substitutable product for certain compacted, plied, ring spun cotton yarns, with yarn counts in the range from 42 to 102 metric, classified in subheadings 5205.42.0020, 5205.43.0020, 5205.44.0020, 5205.46.0020, 5205.47.0020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, and requesting that CITA revoke its previous designation regarding these yarns. On September 29, 2005, following a determination that the subject yarns could not be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA and ATPDEA, CITA designated men's and boys' woven cotton trousers and shirts, and women's and girls' woven cotton trousers, shirts, and blouses, made from U.S. formed fabric containing such yarns as eligible for duty-free treatment under the CBTPA and ATPDEA. CITA hereby solicits public comments on this request from NCTO, in particular with regard to whether such yarns or substitutable yarns can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities. Comments must be submitted by February 3, 2006 to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, United States Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Stetson, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202)482-3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 213(b)(2)(A)(v)(II) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, as added by Section 211(a) of the CBTPA; Section 6 of Executive Order No. 13191 of January 17, 2001; Presidential Proclamation 7351 of October 2, 2000; Section 204 (b)(3)(B)(ii) of the ATPDEA; Presidential Proclamation 7616 of October 31, 2002, Executive Order 13277 of November 19, 2002, and the United States Trade Representative's Notice of Further Assignment of Functions of November 25, 2002. Background The CBTPA and ATPDEA provides for quota-and duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns and fabrics formed in the United States or a beneficiary country. The CBTPA and ATPDEA also provides for duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA and ATPDEA beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States or a beneficiary country, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. In Executive Order No. 13191, the President delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA and ATPDEA and directed CITA to establish procedures to ensure appropriate public participation in any such determination. On March 6, 2001, CITA published procedures that it will follow in considering requests (66 FR 13502). On September 29, 2005, following a determination that the compacted, plied, ring spun cotton yarns could not be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA and ATPDEA, CITA designated certain apparel made from U.S. formed fabric containing such yarns as eligible for duty-free treatment under the CBTPA and ATPDEA. On January 10, 2006, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from The National Council of Textiles Organizations

(NCTO)alleging that yarns substitutable for these yarns can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, and requesting that CITA revoke its previous designation regarding these yarns. This petition can be viewed online at *http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/Commercial_Availability.htm* . CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether these yarns or substitutable yarns can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received by no later than February 3, 2006. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. If a comment alleges that these yarns or substitutable yarns can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer of the yarns stating that it produces the yarns that are the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production. Similarly, if a comment alleges that these yarns cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation. CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary. James C. Leonard III, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. 06-538 Filed 1-17-06; 2:33 pm]

Connectionstraces to 4

Traces to 4 documents

U.S. Code

CFR