Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-06-16 · Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled · Notices

Notices. Additions to Procurement List

14,265 words·~65 min read·/register/2006/06/16/06-5518

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

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Additions to Procurement List. SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List products to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled,Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *SKennerly@jwod.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 21, 2006, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (71 FR 20643) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government. 2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List: Products *Product/NSNs:* Load Lifter Attachment Strap. 8465-01-521-7815—Woodland Camouflage. 8465-01-524-7241—Universal Camouflage. 8465-01-519-6132—Desert Camouflage. *NPA:* The Arkansas Lighthouse for the Blind, Little Rock, Arkansas. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. *Product/NSNs:* Straps, Lashing. 8465-01-524-7689—Foliage Green. 8465-01-491-2095—Desert Camouflage. 8465-01-465-2095—Woodland Camouflage. *NPA:* Travis Association for the Blind, Austin, Texas. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. *Product/NSNs:* System Repair Kit. 8465-01-465-2080—Woodland & Desert Pattern. 8465-01-524-7639—Universal Pattern. *NPA:* Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts. Sheryl D. Kennerly, Director, Information Management. [FR Doc. E6-9441 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Proposed Additions to Procurement List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. *Comments Must be Received on or Before:* July 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. For Further Information or to Submit Comments Contact: Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *SKennerly@jwod.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Products *Product/NSNs:* Bag, Fecal Incontinent. 6530-00-NSH-0044. *NPA:* Work, Incorporated, North Quincy, Massachusetts. *Contracting Activity:* Veterans Affairs National Acquisition Center, Hines, Illinois. *Product/NSNs:* SKILCRAFT Cellulose Mop & Refill. M.R. 1099. M.R. 1089. SKILCRAFT Melamine Mop & Refill. M.R. 1098. M.R. 1088. *NPA:* L.C. Industries For The Blind, Inc., Durham, North Carolina. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA), Fort Lee, Virginia. Services *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Army Corps of Engineers—Eastern Area Office, 926 SW. Adams Street (Suite 110), Peoria, Illinois. *NPA:* Community Workshop and Training Center, Inc., Peoria, Illinois. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island, Illinois. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Frank Peregory U.S. Army Reserve Center, 1634 Cherry Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia. *NPA:* WorkSource Enterprises, Charlottesville, Virginia. *Contracting Activity:* 99th Regional Support Command, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Social Security Administration Building, 88 South Laurel Street, Hazelton, Pennsylvania. *NPA:* United Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. *Contracting Activity:* GSA Public Buildings Service, Region 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Tacoma National Cemetery,18600 240th Avenue, SE., Kent, Washington. *NPA:* Northwest Center for the Retarded, Seattle, WA. *Contracting Activity:* Department of Veterans Affairs, Tacoma, Washington. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Wayne L. Morse Federal Courthouse, 455 E. 8th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon. *NPA:* Garten Services, Inc., Salem, Oregon. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, Public Buildings Service—Region 10, Auburn, Washington. *Service Type/Location:* Document Destruction, Internal Revenue Service, 474 South Court Street, Room 361, Montgomery, Alabama. *Service Type/Location:* Document Destruction, Internal Revenue Service,801 Tom Martin Drive, Birmingham, Alabama. *NPA:* United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Birmingham, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Treasury, IRS, Chamblee, Georgia. Sheryl D. Kennerly, Director, Information Management. [FR Doc. E6-9442 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce
(DOC)has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). *Title:* Chemical Weapons Convention, Amendment to the Export Administration Regulations (End-Use Certificates and Advance Notifications and Annual Reports). *Agency Form Number:* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0694-0117. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection of information. *Burden:* 17 hours. *Average Time Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Number of Respondents:* 33 respondents. *Needs and Uses:* This collection is required by the Chemical Weapons Convention. The U.S. is under obligation by this international treaty to impose certain trade controls. States Parties may only export Schedule 1 chemicals to other States Parties, must provide advance notification of exports of any quantity of a Schedule 1 chemical, and must submit annual reports of exports of such chemicals during the previous calendar year. The Convention also requires that prior to the export of a Schedule 2 or Schedule 3 chemicals to a non-States Party, the exporter obtain an End-Use Certificate issued by the government of the importing country. *Affected Public:* Individuals, businesses or other for-profit institutions. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, DOC Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, e-mail address, *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov,* or fax number,
(202)395-7285. Dated: June 12, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-9426 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau 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:* Current Industrial Reports, Wave 1. *Form Number(s):* MQ315B, MQ325B, MQ327D, MA311D, MA325F, MA327C, MA331B, MA332Q, MA333A, MA333M, MA333N, MA335F, and MA335K. *Agency Approval Number:* 0607-0392. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 6,276 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 4,650. *Avg. Hours per Response:* 1 hour and 21 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The U.S. Census Bureau is requesting a revision of the mandatory and voluntary surveys in Wave I of the Current Industrial Reports
(CIR)program. The Census Bureau conducts a series of monthly, quarterly, and annual surveys as part of the CIR program. The CIR program focuses primarily on the quantity and value of shipments data of particular products and occasionally with data on production and inventories; unfilled orders, receipts, stocks, and consumption; and comparative data on domestic production, exports, and imports of the products they cover. Due to the large number of surveys in the CIR program, for clearance purposes, the CIR surveys are divided into “waves.” One wave is resubmitted for clearance each year. This year the Census Bureau is submitting the mandatory and voluntary surveys of Wave I for clearance. A new survey, MQ315B, “Socks Production” will be added in this wave. This new survey was requested by the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition (AMTAC) and other trade associations such as the Domestic Manufacturers Committee and also by the domestic manufacturers. In 2004 and 2005 we collected data on socks as part of the counterpart for the MQ315A, “Apparel” survey. For copies of the latest instruction manuals and report forms in this wave go to this Web address: *http://www.census.gov/mcd/clearance.* Primary users of these data are government and regulatory agencies, business firms, trade associations, and private research and consulting organizations. The FRB uses CIR data in its monthly index of industrial production as well as its annual revision to the index. The Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA)and the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS)use the CIR data in the estimate of components of gross domestic product
(GDP)and the estimate of output for productivity analysis, respectively. Many government agencies, such as the International Trade Commission, Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, BEA, and International Trade Administration use the data for industrial analysis, projections, and monitoring import penetration. Private business firms and organizations use the data for trend projections, market analysis, product planning, and other economic and business-oriented analysis. Since the CIR program is the sole, consistent source of information regarding specific manufactured products in the intercensal years, the absence thereof would severely hinder the Federal Government's ability to measure and monitor important segments of the domestic economy, as well as the effect of import penetration. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for profit. *Frequency:* Quarterly and Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory and Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), sections 61, 182, 224, and 225. *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: June 12, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst,Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-9421 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration [Docket No.: 060607156-6156-01] Solicitation of Applications for the National Technical Assistance Program AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: The Economic Development Administration
(EDA)is soliciting applications for FY 2006 National Technical Assistance Program (NTA Program) funding. EDA's mission is to lead the Federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. Through its NTA Program, EDA works towards fulfilling its mission by funding research and technical assistance projects to promote competitiveness and innovation in urban and rural regions throughout the United States and its territories. By working in conjunction with its research partners, EDA will help States, local governments, and community-based organizations to achieve their highest economic potential. DATES: Applications (on Form ED-900A, Application for Investment Assistance) for funding under this notice must be received by the EDA representative listed below under ADDRESSES no later than August 1, 2006 at 5 p.m. EDT. Applications received after 5 p.m. EDT on August 1, 2006 will not be considered for funding. By September 1, 2006, EDA expects to notify the applicants selected for investment assistance. The selected applicants should expect to receive funding for their projects within thirty
(30)days of EDA's notification of selection. ADDRESSES: Applications submitted pursuant to this notice may be: 1. E-mailed to William P. Kittredge at *wkittredge@eda.doc.gov* ; or 2. Hand-delivered to William P. Kittredge, Senior Program Analyst, Economic Development Administration, Room 7009, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; or 3. Mailed to William P. Kittredge, Senior Program Analyst, Economic Development Administration, Room 7009, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications by e-mail. Applicants are advised that, due to mail security measures, EDA's receipt of mail sent via the United States Postal Service may be substantially delayed or suspended in delivery. EDA will not accept applications submitted by facsimile. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For additional information, please contact William P. Kittredge at
(202)482-5442 or via e-mail at the address listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Electronic Access:* The FFO announcement for this competitive solicitation is available at *http://www.grants.gov* and at EDA's Internet Web site at *http://www.eda.gov* . Paper copies of the Form ED-900A, “Application for Investment Assistance” (OMB Control No. 0610-0094), and additional information on EDA and its NTA Program may be obtained from EDA's Internet Web site at *http://www.eda.gov* . *Funding Availability:* Funds appropriated under the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-108, 119 Stat. 2290 (2005)) (2006 Appropriations Act) are available for making awards under the NTA Program authorized by section 207 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3147), as amended (PWEDA), and 13 CFR part 306, subpart A. Approximately $700,000 is available, and shall remain available until expended, for funding awards pursuant to this request for applications. EDA anticipates publishing additional FFO announcements under the NTA Program later during this fiscal year. *Statutory Authority:* The authority for the NTA Program is PWEDA. On August 11, 2005, EDA published an interim final rule (70 FR 47002) to reflect the amendments made to EDA's authorizing statute by the Economic Development Administration Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-373, 118 Stat. 1756 (2004)). The interim final rule became effective on October 1, 2005. EDA's public comment period for the interim final rule ran from August 11, 2005 through November 14, 2005. On December 15, 2005, EDA published a second interim final rule (70 FR 74193) to change provisions of the August 11, 2005 interim final rule consistent with the direction provided in the Conference Report (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 109-272) accompanying the 2006 Appropriations Act. You may access the currently effective regulations and PWEDA on EDA's Internet Web site at *http://www.eda.gov* . Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 11.303, Economic Development—Technical Assistance. *Eligibility Requirement:* Pursuant to PWEDA, eligible applicants for and eligible recipients of EDA investment assistance include a District Organization; an Indian Tribe or a consortium of Indian Tribes; a State; a city or other political subdivision of a State, including a special purpose unit of a State or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions; an institution of higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher education; a public or private non-profit organization or association; a private individual; or a for-profit organization. *See* section 3 of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3122) and 13 CFR 300.3. *Cost Sharing Requirement:* Generally, the amount of the EDA grant may not exceed fifty
(50)percent of the total cost of the project. Projects may receive an additional amount that shall not exceed thirty
(30)percent, based on the relative needs of the region in which the project will be located, as determined by EDA. *See* section 204(a) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3144) and 13 CFR 301.4(b)(1). The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development (Assistant Secretary) has the discretion to establish a maximum EDA investment rate of up to one hundred
(100)percent where the project
(i)merits and is not otherwise feasible without an increase to the EDA investment rate; or
(ii)will be of no or only incidental benefit to the recipient. *See* section 204(c)(3) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3144) and 13 CFR 301.4(b)(4). While cash contributions are preferred, in-kind contributions, consisting of assumptions of debt or contributions of space, equipment, and services, may provide the non-federal share of the total project cost. *See* section 204(b) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3144). EDA will fairly evaluate all in-kind contributions, which must be eligible project costs and meet applicable Federal cost principles and uniform administrative requirements. Funds from other Federal financial assistance awards are considered matching share funds only if authorized by statute that allows such use, which may be determined by EDA's reasonable interpretation of the statute. *See* 13 CFR 300.3. The applicant must show that the matching share is committed to the project, available as needed and not conditioned or encumbered in any way that precludes its use consistent with the requirements of EDA investment assistance. *See* 13 CFR 301.5. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under the NTA Program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” *Evaluation and Selection Procedures:* To apply for an award under this request for applications, an eligible applicant must submit a completed application (Form ED-900A, Application for Investment Assistance) to EDA during the specified timeframe specified in the DATES section of this notice. Applications received after 5 p.m. EDT on August 1, 2006 will not be considered for funding. By September 1, 2006, EDA expects to notify the applicants selected for investment assistance. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified by postal mail that their applications were not recommended for funding. Applications that do not meet all items required or that exceed the page limitations set forth in this competitive solicitation will be considered non-responsive and will not be considered by the review panel. Applications that meet all the requirements will be evaluated by a review panel comprised of at least three
(3)EDA staff members, all of whom will be full-time Federal employees. *Evaluation Criteria:* The review panel will evaluate the applications and rate and rank them using the following criteria of approximate equal weight: 1. Conformance with EDA's statutory and regulatory requirements, including the extent to which the proposed project satisfies the award requirements set out below and as provided in 13 CFR 306.2: a. Strengthens the capacity of local, State or national organizations and institutions to undertake and promote effective economic development programs targeted to regions of distress; b. Benefits distressed regions; and c. Demonstrates innovative approaches to stimulate economic development in distressed regions; 2. The degree to which an EDA investment will have strong organizational leadership, relevant project management experience and a significant commitment of human resources talent to ensure the project's successful execution ( *see* 13 CFR 301.8(b)); 3. The ability of the applicant to implement the proposed project successfully ( *see* 13 CFR 301.8); 4. The feasibility of the budget presented; and 5. The cost to the Federal Government. *Selection Factors:* EDA expects to fund the highest ranking applications submitted under this competitive solicitation. The Assistant Secretary is the Selecting Official and will normally follow the recommendation of the review panel. However, the Assistant Secretary may not make any selection, or he may select an application out of rank order for the following reasons:
(1)A determination that the application better meets the overall objectives of sections 2 and 207 of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3121 and 3147);
(2)the applicant's performance under previous awards; or
(3)the availability of funding. The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, published in the **Federal Register** on December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389), are applicable to this competitive solicitation. This notice may be accessed by entering the **Federal Register** volume and page number provided in the previous sentence at the following Internet Web site: *http://gpoaccess.gov/fr/retrieve.html* . Paperwork Reduction Act This request for applications contains a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the use of the Application for Investment Assistance (Form ED-900A) under control number 0610-0094. The Form ED-900A also incorporates Forms SF-424 (Application for Financial Assistance), SF-424A (Budget—Non-Construction Programs) and SF-424B (Assurances—Non-Construction Programs). 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 the 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, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Executive Order 13132 It has been determined that this notice does not contain “policies that have Federalism implications,” as that phrase is defined in Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning 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: June 13, 2006. Benjamin Erulkar, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development and Chief Operating Officer. [FR Doc. E6-9519 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-331-802 Notice of Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by Studmark S.A. (Studmark), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador for the period of review
(POR)August 4, 2004, through July 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that, during the POR, Studmark sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4136 or
(202)482-3773, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 29, 2005, we received a request from Studmark S.A. to initiate a new shipper review of Studmark's sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. On October 3, 2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of this new shipper antidumping duty review covering the period August 4, 2004, through July 31, 2005. *See Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador* , 70 FR 57562 (October 3, 2005). We issued a questionnaire to Studmark in October 2005 and received responses in October and November 2005. We issued supplemental questionnaires in December 2005 and January 2006, and received responses to those questionnaires in the same months. In addition, we issued questionnaires to the importer of record, Colorful Butterfly Imports, LLC (Colorful Butterfly), and to Global Shrimp Imports LLC (Global Shrimp), Studmark's U.S. customer, in December 2005 and January 2006, respectively. These companies provided responses in January 2006. From February 14 through 16, 2006, we conducted a verification of Studmark's questionnaire responses, which included a visit to Oceanpro, S.A., an unaffiliated producer/exporter of subject merchandise that processed and packed Studmark's subject merchandise sales to the United States and the home market under a tolling agreement. On April 3, 2006, the Department published an extension of the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this review by an additional 120 days, or until July 26, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador* , 71 FR 16556 (April 3, 2006). On April 21, 2006, we issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to Studmark, and received Studmark's response, dated May 1, 2006, on May 2, 2006. Scope of Order The scope of this order includes certain warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether frozen, wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, 1 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. 1 “Tails” in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp ( *Penaeus vannemei* ), banana prawn ( *Penaeus merguiensis* ), fleshy prawn ( *Penaeus chinensis* ), giant river prawn ( *Macrobrachium rosenbergii* ), giant tiger prawn ( *Penaeus monodon* ), redspotted shrimp ( *Penaeus brasiliensis* ), southern brown shrimp ( *Penaeus subtilis* ), southern pink shrimp ( *Penaeus notialis* ), southern rough shrimp ( *Trachypenaeus curvirostris* ), southern white shrimp ( *Penaeus schmitti* ), blue shrimp ( *Penaeus stylirostris* ), western white shrimp ( *Penaeus occidentalis* ), and Indian white prawn ( *Penaeus indicus* ). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order. Excluded from the scope are: 1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the *Pandalidae* family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS subheading 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTS subheading 1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted shrimp; and 8) certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: 1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; 3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; 4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and 5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen
(IQF)freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification of the sales information provided by Studmark. We used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are detailed in the verification report placed in the case file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU)in room B-099 of the main Department building. *See* March 8, 2006, Memorandum to the File entitled “Verification of the Sales Response of Studmark, S.A. in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador” ( *Verification Report* ). Product Comparisons To determine whether Studmark made sales of frozen warmwater shrimp to the United States at less than normal value, we compared the export price
(EP)to the normal value (NV), as described in the *Export Price* and *Normal Value* sections of this notice. As discussed further below, because we determine that a “particular market situation” exists with respect to the Ecuadorian market for frozen warmwater shrimp, we were unable to base NV on Studmark's sales to the home market. Instead, we have compared the EP sale to constructed value (CV). Export Price For the price to the United States, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP because Studmark's U.S. sale of subject merchandise was made directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation. We based EP on the packed free-on-board
(FOB)prices to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for exportation to, the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, and foreign brokerage and handling. Studmark reported in its November 9, 2005, Section B and C questionnaire response
(QRBC)that it made its U.S. sale on an FOB Ecuador-port basis, but that the foreign inland freight expense was included in the ocean freight expense paid by the U.S. importer. However, at verification, Studmark was unable to support this claim that the importer paid for foreign inland freight. *See Verification Report* at page 15. As the foreign inland freight expense information provided by Studmark could not be verified, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, we are applying the facts otherwise available
(FA)for this expense. That is, as Studmark could not support its contention that it did not pay for foreign inland freight, as FA for the preliminary results, we are deducting foreign inland freight expenses in our calculation of EP. The only freight expense information on the record of this review is the freight expense Studmark incurred to transport unprocessed shrimp from its supplying farms to the processing plant. *See* QRBC at page 93. As FA, we have derived a per-unit foreign inland freight expense by dividing this farm-to-plant freight expense by the quantity of the U.S. sale. Studmark reported at page 61 of the QRBC that there is no inland insurance expense to cover merchandise transport from the plant to the port. However, at verification, our review of Studmark's transport insurance policy, found at Exhibit 13 of the *Verification Report* , indicates that the policy covers transport of shrimp from the farm to the processing plant, and from the processing plant to the port. Therefore, to properly account for the inland insurance expense in our EP calculation, we calculated a per-unit amount for the plant-to-port portion of the insurance expense based on half of the reported cost of the insurance premium as FA, in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act. As discussed at pages 15 and 16 of the *Verification Report* , Studmark incurred foreign brokerage and handling expenses, but reported them as part of its difference-in-merchandise (DIFMER) calculation. We have reclassified this expense as a movement expense and recalculated it, as described at page 16 of the *Verification Report* . Normal Value A. Selection of Basis for Normal Value Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate NV based on the price at which the foreign like product is first sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate), and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. Under the statute, the Department will normally consider quantity (or value) insufficient if it is less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. See Section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. In the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation segment of this proceeding, the Department determined that a particular market situation existed which rendered the Ecuadorian market inappropriate for purposes of determining NV for the three respondents in the LTFV investigation. *See* Memorandum dated June 7, 2004, entitled “Home Market as Appropriate Comparison Market” ( *Market Memo* ), as included at Attachment II to the Department's December 8, 2005, supplemental questionnaire. Specifically, we noted that: • The Ecuadorian shrimp industry, as a whole, is export oriented; • The shrimp sold by the LTFV respondents in the home market was of inferior quality and not suitable for export, and none of these respondents had sufficient home market sales of export-quality merchandise to constitute a viable comparison market; • The LTFV respondents' marketing and distribution of domestically sold non-export-quality shrimp were perfunctory, with home market sales made on an “as is,” “as available” and “ex-plant” basis; • The non-export quality shrimp was sold at significantly reduced prices to home market customers in order to offset losses. If the non-export-quality shrimp had not been sold in the home market, it would have been disposed of as waste, and the respondents would have had to take a complete loss on the product; • The LTFV respondents did not negotiate over price prior to the transaction in the home market, but rather sold the shrimp on sight at the plant with transport being the responsibility of the purchaser; and • The majority of the LTFV respondents' sales was to export markets; home market sales were incidental to the respondents' overall business operations. We concluded that: Given the evidence on the record regarding the nature of the Ecuadorian market, the marketing and selling practices of the respondents, and the quality distinctions between the overwhelming majority of the frozen shrimp sold in the home market and the shrimp sold for export, we recommend finding that a particular market situation exists which renders the Ecuadorian market inappropriate for purposes of determining normal value in this investigation. As a result, we recommend for purposes of this investigation to determine normal value based on the respondents' sales to third country markets. *See Market Memo* at page 6. Accordingly, we based NV in the LTFV investigation on the respondents' sales to third-country markets. In the December 8, 2005, supplemental questionnaire, we requested that Studmark address how its sales to the home market compare to the sales described in the memorandum, and to explain why its sales to the home market are appropriate for comparison to U.S. sales. Studmark explained at page 8 of its December 21, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response
(SQR)that it produced and sold only export-quality shrimp to both the home market and the U.S. market. While in the LTFV investigation, none of the three respondents had sufficient home market sales of export-quality merchandise to constitute a viable comparison market, almost all of Studmark's sales are of export-quality merchandise and the sales quantity is well above five percent of Studmark's U.S. sales quantity. Studmark stated that its home market sales of export-quality shrimp are neither perfunctory nor incidental to its export business. Our analysis of Studmark's sales data confirms that, unlike the LTFV respondents' home market sales, nearly all of Studmark's home market sales were of export-quality shrimp comparable to the merchandise sold to the United States and, as noted above, the quantity of these sales was well above five percent of the quantity of the U.S. sale. However, Studmark reported that its home market sales process differed from its U.S sales process in that the home market sales prices were negotiated after production, while U.S. sales prices were negotiated prior to production, with prices confirmed through a *pro forma* invoice. Studmark sold its home market sales on an ex-plant basis, while U.S. sales were sold FOB port. *See* SQR at page 5. At verification, we found that the home market sales were made on a more perfunctory and incidental basis than Studmark had represented in its questionnaire responses. Studmark explained that it had to buy the entire pond harvests from the shrimp farmers in order to obtain sufficient processed shrimp to complete its U.S. sales order. After arranging for the farm purchases, Studmark determined that it would have a surplus amount of shrimp from the shrimp harvest which would be too small for a container-size sale typical for export orders. Accordingly, Studmark contacted local buyers to purchase the remaining shrimp. *See Verification Report* at pages 7-8. The export-quality shrimp was sold to a home market customer more than two weeks after the U.S. sale was shipped. *See* , *e.g.* , home market sales documents included in Exhibit 10 of the *Verification Report* . Documentation regarding the shrimp Studmark sold to the U.S., which was processed according to a tolling agreement with Oceanpro, S.A., was first submitted for the record on October 6, 2005. In the agreement, Studmark is consistently referred to as “THE EXPORTER,” and described as “a company whose main activity is the export of seafood, in its different presentations, to markets in USA and Europe.” *See* page 1 of the English translation of the tolling agreement, included as an unnumbered exhibit to the SQR. The tolling agreement describes all the arrangements between the parties on the assumption that all processing performed is for shrimp to be exported. For example, at page 3 of the English translation, the agreement reads “THE EXPORTER shall make, by its account and previous to each export, the analysis that determine the INP and/or the client abroad....” Studmark did not maintain a separate tolling agreement for home market sales. In its February 2, 2006, letter, Studmark stated that “{t}he tolling agreement previously submitted governed domestic sales as well as export sales.” While we note that Studmark's sales to the home market differ from the LTFV respondents in that the vast majority of its home market sales were of export-quality shrimp, rather than substandard quality shrimp, its home market sales situation is similar to that described in the *Market Memo* . Studmark's sales to home market customers are incidental to its principal business of selling to export markets. The home market sales were of products left over from the U.S. sale transaction, and sold on sight at the plant. In general, Studmark's home market does not differ markedly from the LTFV respondents' home market where we found a particular market situation under section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that a particular market situation exists for Studmark's home market during the POR. As a result, we cannot rely on Studmark's home market sales to calculate NV. Studmark's only export sale during the POR was to the United States. That is, Studmark had no third-country sales during the POR. The only other basis for calculating NV is CV, based on the data Studmark submitted for DIFMER adjustments, and on data collected at verification. Accordingly, we have calculated NV based on CV, as discussed below. B. Level of Trade Analysis In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as U.S. sales. *See* 19 CFR 351.412. The NV LOT is the level of the starting-price sale in the home market. For EP, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer in the home market. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In the United States, Studmark made EP sales to wholesalers/distributors through the same channel of distribution, performing the identical selling functions. Therefore, we determine that there is only one LOT for EP sales. When NV is based on CV, as in this case, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. ( * See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile * , 63 FR 2664 (January 16, 1998)). As discussed below, we based the CV selling expenses on Studmark's home market sales as FA, and based CV profit on the weighted-average profits earned by the respondents in the LTFV investigation. We are unable to determine that the LOT of the sales from which we derived selling expenses and profit for CV is different from the EP LOT. Further, there is only one NV LOT, and there is insufficient information on the record that would enable us to determine that an LOT adjustment is warranted. Therefore, we have no basis upon which to make an LOT adjustment to NV. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, which indicates that CV shall be based on the sum of a respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the subject merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit and U.S. packing costs. We relied on the information submitted by Studmark to calculate CV as follows: To calculate the cost of materials and fabrication, we used the cost of manufacture data Studmark reported in its questionnaire responses for calculating DIFMER adjustments. Based on verification findings, we found that the calculations of the variable costs of manufacture for the DIFMER adjustment included misclassified expenses. Accordingly, we recalculated the variable costs of manufacture and some expenses were reclassified as movement expenses or direct selling expenses. *See* alternative calculation worksheets in Appendix IV of the *Verification Report* . To calculate selling expenses, as FA, we used the information Studmark reported for expenses on home market sales. We calculated the general and administrative expense ratio based on the fiscal year 2005 trial balance information, as detailed in the Memorandum to the File entitled *Studmark Preliminary Results Notes and Margin Calculation* , dated the same as this notice ( *Preliminary Results Calculation Memo* ). To calculate profit, for purposes of the preliminary results, we used the weighted-average profit rate derived from LTFV comparision market data from the LTFV respondents, Exportadora de Alimentos S.A. (Expalsa), Exporklore, S.A. and Promarisco, S.A., in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. Because Studmark does not have a viable comparison market, we could not determine CV profit under section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. The statute does not establish a hierarchy for selecting among the alternative profit methodologies. *See* Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 840 (1994). Nonetheless, we examined each alternative in searching for an appropriate method. Because Studmark did not have sales of any product in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise, we were unable to apply alternative
(i)of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act. Further, we cannot calculate profit based on alternative
(ii)of this section because there are no other respondents in this review, and 19 CFR 351.405(b) requires that a profit ratio under this alternative be based on home market sales, which we have determined cannot be used. Therefore, we calculated Studmark's CV profit based on alternative
(iii)of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, which is any other reasonable method. As a result, we calculated Studmark's CV profit ratio as a weighted-average of the profit ratios calculated for the respondents in the LTFV investigation on their sales to their third-country comparison markets. We applied this ratio to the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication, plus the amounts for general and administrative expenses, to calculate an amount for profit. Pursuant to alternative (iii), the Department has the option of using any other reasonable method, as long as the result is not greater than the amount realized by exporters or producers “in connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise” ( *i.e.* , the “profit cap”). The Department attempted to identify appropriate profit cap data for sales in Ecuador of merchandise “in the same general category of products” as frozen shrimp through a broad-based internet search. We applied various search terms in English and Spanish and reviewed various business directory Web sites, including Goliath, Thomson Gale's online-business content service, “PaginaAmarillas.com” (Yellow Pages), and Ecuadorian government sites. *See Preliminary Results Calculation Memo* for a discussion of the Department's search attempt. Although we were able to obtain profit ratios for companies listed as the “1,000 Most Important Companies in 2004” from the Ecuadorian Superintendency of Companies, the sector of business that includes the subject merchandise, the agricultural sector, is overly broad because it includes tobacco, meat, and baking companies as well as seafood processors. Moreover, we are unable to ascertain whether the companies sell their merchandise in Ecuador. Among these companies are several shrimp exporters, such as Expalsa, one of the LTFV respondents, and other seafood processing companies, which, based on the limited information observed on internet Web sites, appear to be export-oriented companies. In addition to our own research, we provided Studmark with the opportunity to submit information relevant to the amount of profit to be applied in the CV calculation under section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, including the amount of profit normally realized by Ecuadorian exporters or producers in connection with the sale, for consumption of the merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise. *See* April 21, 2006, supplemental questionnaire (as corrected per a Memorandum to the File dated April 25, 2006). Studmark did not provide any such information in its May 1, 2006, response. Accordingly, as FA, we applied option
(iii)without quantifying a profit cap. To determine the most appropriate profit rate under alternative (iii), we weighed several factors. Among them are:
(1)The similarity of the potential surrogate companies' business operations and products to those of respondent;
(2)the extent to which the financial data of the surrogate companies reflect sales in the United States as well as the home market;
(3)the contemporaneity of the surrogate data with the POR; and
(4)the similarity of the customer base. The greater the similarity in business operations, products, and customer base, the more likely that there is a greater correlation between the profit experience of the companies in question. Because the Department typically compares U.S. sales to a NV based on sales in the home market or third country, the Department does not normally construct a NV based on financial data that contains exclusively or predominantly U.S. sales. Finally, contemporaneity is a concern because markets change over time and the more current the data, the more reflective it will be of the market in which the respondent is operating ( *see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium from Israel* , 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8, and * Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Certain Color Television Receivers from Malaysia * , 69 FR 20592 (April 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 26). Based on the record of this review to date, we determine that the use of the weighted-average profit rate of the LTFV respondents is a reasonable method for the following reasons. First, the products sold by the other respondents in their respective third-country markets are substantially similar to those sold by Studmark ( *i.e.* , sales of frozen, head-off, uncooked shrimp). Second, the CV profit rate for the LTFV respondents excludes sales to the United States. Third, the LTFV respondents sold to distributor/wholesalers similar to Studmark's U.S. customer ( *i.e.* , they had the same type of customer base). We note that the weighted-average CV profit rate calculated for the LTFV respondents covers a time frame that is not contemporaneous with the POR. The LTFV investigation period was from October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003, while the instant POR is August 4, 2004, through July 31, 2005. However, there is no other CV profit data available that meets the other criteria and is contemporaneous with the POR, and there is no information currently on the record to indicate that the difference in the time periods is distortive. In addition, the Department verified the LTFV respondents' third-country market information and ascertained the reliability of the data. Currency Conversion As Studmark reported its prices, expenses, and costs in U.S. dollars, no currency conversions were required in our margin calculations. Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following percentage margin exists for Studmark for the period August 4, 2004, through July 31, 2005: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Studmark, S.A. 12.53 The Department will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held 44 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in such briefs may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting briefs are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such briefs on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rate If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this administrative review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for the importer of subject merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sale, to the total entered value of the examined sale. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , the importer-specific rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries made during the POR. Cash Deposit Requirements Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments from Studmark of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this new shipper review. The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Studmark, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date as provided for by section 751 (a)(2)(C) of the Act: • for shipments of subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Studmark, the cash deposit rate shall be the rate determined in the final results of the review; • for shipments of subject merchandise from Studmark but not produced by Studmark, the cash-deposit rate will be the “All Others” rate, 3.58 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping and/or countervailing duties reimbursed. This new shipper review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 9, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-9475 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-588-815) Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Japan: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission that revocation of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and cement clinker from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, the Department is publishing notice of the continuation of this antidumping duty order. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman or Minoo Hatten, Office 5, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3931 and
(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated and the International Trade Commission
(ITC)instituted the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and cement clinker from Japan, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 70 FR 57560 (October 3, 2005); Institution of Five-year Reviews concerning the Antidumping Duty Orders on Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Japan and Mexico* , 70 FR 57617 (October 3, 2005). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. *See Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 71 FR 6268 (February 7, 2006). On May 26, 2006, the ITC determined pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on gray portland cement and cement clinker from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Japan* , 71 FR 32127 (June 2, 2006), and ITC Publication 3856 (May 2006), entitled *Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Japan: Investigation No. 731-TA-461 (Second Review)* . Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are cement and cement clinker from Japan. Cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary component of concrete. Cement clinker, an intermediate material produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than grinding into finished cement. Microfine cement was specifically excluded from the antidumping duty order. Cement is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS)item number 2523.29, and cement clinker is currently classifiable under HTS item number 2523.10. Cement has also been entered under HTS item number 2523.90 as “other hydraulic cements.” The Department made two scope rulings regarding subject merchandise. *See Scope Rulings* , 57 FR 19602 (May 7, 1992), classes G and H of oil well cement are within the scope of the order, and *Scope Rulings* , 58 FR 27542 (May 10, 1993), “Nittetsu Super Fine” cement is not within the scope of the order. The order remains in effect for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters of cement from Japan. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage. Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and ITC that revocation of this antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and cement clinker from Japan. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of this order will be the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of this order not later than May 2011. These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. Dated: June 9, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-9476 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-863 Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 16, 2005, the Department published the *Preliminary Results* of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC). *Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 74764 (December 16, 2005) ( *Preliminary Results* ). This review covers eight exporters or producer/exporters:
(1)Anhui Honghui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd. (Anhui Honghui);
(2)Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Kanghong);
(3)Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. (Jinfu);
(4)Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Eswell);
(5)Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Group Corp. (Zhejiang);
(6)Chengdu Waiyuan Bee Products Co., Ltd. (Chengdu Waiyuan);
(7)Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd. (Eurasia); and
(8)Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dubao). The period of review
(POR)is December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. We have made changes to certain surrogate values based on our analysis of the record, including factual information obtained since the *Preliminary Results* . Therefore, the final results differ from the *Preliminary Results* . See “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Boughton or Bobby Wong, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-8173 or
(202)482-0409, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background We published in the **Federal Register** the *Preliminary Results* of the third administrative review on December 16, 2005. *Preliminary Results* . The POR is December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. Since the *Preliminary Results* the following events have occurred: On January 3, 2006, we extended the time limit for submitting further information to value the factors of production until February 2, 2006. On February 2, 2006, we received surrogate value submissions from Anhui Honghui, Jiangsu Kanghong, and Zhejiang (collectively, GDLSK respondents), from Eswell, and from the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners). On February 13, 2006, we received a rebuttal surrogate value submission from the GDLSK respondents. On February 7, 2006, we invited parties to comment in their briefs on reclassifying employee benefits (i.e., pension and social security expenses) from direct labor to manufacturing overhead in the calculation of financial ratios. We invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . We received case briefs from the GDLSK respondents and Eswell on February 21, 2006. We received a rebuttal brief from the petitioners on February 28, 2006. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department issued a notice of intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to Chengdu Waiyuan, as we found that there were no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. *Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 74765. The Department received no comments on this issue and has no evidence to challenge this finding. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review with respect to Chengdu Waiyuan. Separate Rates Anhui Honghui, Jiangsu Kanghong, Jinfu, Eswell, Zhejiang, and Eurasia requested separate, company-specific antidumping duty rates. In the *Preliminary Results* , we found that Anhui Honghui, Jiangsu Kanghong, Jinfu, Eswell, and Zhejiang had met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. *Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 74768. Also in the *Preliminary Results* , we found that Eurasia and Dubao did not respond in a complete and timely manner to the Department's requests for information, and hence do not qualify for separate rates, but rather are appropriately considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity. *Id* . The Department did not receive comments on this issue prior to these final results. *See also* “The PRC-Wide Rate and Application of Facts Otherwise Available” section below. We have not received any information since the *Preliminary Results* with respect to Anhui Honghui, Jiangsu Kanghong, Jinfu, Eswell, and Zhejiang that would warrant reconsideration of our separate-rates determination with respect to these companies. Therefore, we have assigned individual dumping margins to Anhui Honghui, Jiangsu Kanghong, Jinfu, Eswell, and Zhejiang for this review period. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2003-2004 Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary, dated June 9, 2006 (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Department of Commerce. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes since the Preliminary Results Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have made company-specific changes to certain surrogate value calculations that affect the margin calculations for Eswell. For a discussion of these changes, *see* the Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 8. For the final results, we revised our calculation of surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit, to use the more contemporaneous 2004/2005 annual report from the Mahabaleshwar Honey Producers Cooperative, and applied these new ratios in our margin calculations. We also revised our calculation of the financial ratios by reclassifying employee benefits into overhead, consistent with recent Department determinations. *See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 2905 (January 18, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1B *See also* Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comments 2, 3, and 6. The PRC-wide rate has also changed for the final results, from 183.80 percent to 212.39 percent, which represents the calculated rate for Anhui Honghui in these final results and is the highest rate determined in the instant or any previous segment of this proceeding. We will apply the new PRC-wide rate of 212.39 percent to the PRC-wide entity (including Eurasia and Dubao) for the final results. *See* “The PRC-Wide Rate and Application of Facts Otherwise Available” section below. Corroboration of the new PRC-wide rate is not required because this rate is based on, and calculated from, information obtained in the course of this administrative review, *i.e.* , it is not secondary information. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(c) and
(d)and section 776(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The PRC-Wide Rate and Application of Facts Otherwise Available As explained above, Anhui Honghui, Jiangsu Kanghong, Jinfu, Eswell, and Zhejiang (collectively, separate rate companies) each have obtained a separate rate. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from PRC producers/exporters that have their own calculated rate. *See* “Separate Rates” section above. PRC-wide Entity (including Eurasia and Dubao): The Department did not receive comments on its preliminary determination to apply adverse facts available
(AFA)to the PRC-wide entity (including Eurasia and Dubao) and has no evidence to challenge this finding. Therefore, we have not altered our decision to apply total AFA to the PRC-wide entity (including Eurasia and Dubao) for these final results, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(B)and section 776(b) of the Act. For a complete discussion of the Department's decision to apply total AFA to the PRC-wide entity (including Eurasia and Dubao), *see Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 74768-74769. Final Results of Review We determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist: Exporter Margin (percent) Anhui Honghui Foodstuffs (Group) Co., Ltd. 212.39% Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd. 210.53% Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. 168.88% Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd. 168.30% Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Group Corp. 169.11% PRC-Wide Rate (including Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. and Eurasia's Bee Products Co., Ltd.) 212.39% For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin for each company, see the respective company's analysis memorandum for the final results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, dated June 9, 2006. Public versions of these memoranda are on file in the CRU. Assessment of Antidumping Duties Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for honey from the PRC on a per-unit basis. Specifically, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price or constructed export price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. We will direct CBP to levy importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit ( *i.e.* , per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. Cash Deposits The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)For subject merchandise exported by Anhui Honghui, Jiangsu Kanghong, Jinfu, Eswell, and Zhejiang, we will establish a per-kilogram cash deposit rate which will be equivalent to the company-specific cash deposit established in this review;
(2)the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding (except for Eurasia, whose cash-deposit rate has changed in this review to the PRC-wide entity rate, as noted below);
(3)for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate (including Dubao and Eurasia), the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 183.80 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 9, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Issues General Issues *Comment 1:* Appropriate Surrogate Value for Honey *Comment 2:* Appropriate Surrogate Value for Financial Ratios *Comment 3:* Calculation of the MHPC Financial Ratios *Comment 4:* Brokerage and Handling Expenses *Comment 5:* Calculation of the Surrogate Wage Rate *Comment 6:* Calculation of Employee Benefits in Financial Ratios Company-Specific Issues Shanghai Eswell-Related Issues *Comment 7:* Valuation of By-Product for Shanghai Eswell *Comment 8:* Calculation of Indirect Selling Expenses for Shanghai Eswell Jiangsu Kanghong-Related Issues *Comment 9:* Appropriate Factors of Production to Value for Jiangsu Kanghong [FR Doc. E6-9477 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-412-822] Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4929 or
(202)482-4007, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 2, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 10642) a notice of “Opportunity To Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from the United Kingdom for the period March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. On March 30 and 31, 2006, Firth Rixson Limited (Firth Rixson) and Corus Engineering Steels (CES), respectively, requested an administrative review of their sales for the above-mentioned period. On April 28, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from the United Kingdom with respect to these companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 25145. Partial Rescission of Review On June 1, 2006, CES timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of its sales during the above-referenced period. Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations requires that the Secretary rescind an administrative review if a party requesting a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. In this case, CES has withdrawn its request for review within the 90-day period. We have received no other submissions regarding CES's withdrawal of its request for review. Therefore, we are rescinding in part this review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from the United Kingdom with respect to CES. This review will continue with respect to Firth Rixson. This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: June 12, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-9474 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 060706D] Endangered Species; File No. 1578 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; Receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Maine Department of Marine Resources
(MDMR)(Gail S. Wippelhauser, Principal Investigator), 21 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333 has applied in due form for a permit to take shortnose sturgeon ( *Acipenser brevirostrum* ) for purposes of scientific research. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before July 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: The application 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; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9328; fax (978)281-9394. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by email. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the email comment the following document identifier: File No. 1578. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Shane Guan (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226). The applicant proposes to determine the location of spawning and feeding habitat, and migratory pathways of sturgeon in the Penobscot and Kennebec Rivers in Maine. The study would also determine the impact of river flows on migration and habitat use. Researchers would annually capture up to 250 sturgeon from the Penobscot River during the study's first three years. Up to 500 sturgeon would be captured annually from the Kennebec River during the last two years of the study. Sturgeon would be captured with gillnets, measured, weighed, tissue sampled, Passive Integrated Transponder tagged, and released. A sample of sturgeon would be acoustic tagged. Researchers would also sample for eggs and larvae. The permit would be issued for five-years. Dated: June 12, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-9501 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. PTO-P-2006-0032] Grant of Interim Extension of the Term of U.S. Patent No. 4,591,585; atamestane AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Interim Patent Term Extension. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a certificate under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a third one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,591,585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary C. Till by telephone at
(571)272-7755; by mail marked to her attention and addressed to the Commissioner for Patents, Mail Stop Patent Ext., P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by fax marked to her attention at
(571)273-7755, or by e-mail to *Mary.Till@uspto.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 156 of Title 35, United States Code, generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review, and that the patent may be extended for interim periods of up to a year if the regulatory review is anticipated to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent. On May 9, 2006, Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 4,591,585, assigned to Schering Aktiengesellschaft, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a third interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,591,585. The patent claims the human drug product atamestane. The application indicates that a New Drug Application for the human drug product atamestane has been filed and is currently undergoing regulatory review before the Food and Drug Administration for permission to market or use the product commercially. Review of the application indicates that except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the subject patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should be extended for one year as required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). Because it is apparent that the regulatory review period will continue beyond the extended expiration date of the patent (June 18, 2006), interim extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate. A third interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,591,585 is granted for a period of one year from the expiration date of the patent, *i.e.* , until June 18, 2007. Dated: June 12, 2006. Jon W. Dudas Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E6-9489 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. PTO-P-2006-0033] Grant of Interim Extension of the Term of U.S. Patent No. 4,585,597; ANTHÉLIOS SP (HELIOBLOCK SX Cream) (Mexoryl SX (Ecamsule)) AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Interim Patent Term Extension. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a certificate under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a fourth one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,585,597. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary C. Till by telephone at
(571)272-7755; by mail marked to her attention and addressed to the Commissioner for Patents, Mail Stop Patent Ext., P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by fax marked to her attention at
(571)273-7755, or by e-mail to *Mary.Till@uspto.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 156 of Title 35, United States Code, generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review, and that the patent may be extended for interim periods of up to a year if the regulatory review is anticipated to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent. On May 16, 2006, patent owner, L Oreal S.A., timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a fourth subsequent interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,585,597. The patent claims the active ingredient Mexoryl SX (ecamsule), in the human drug product ANTHELIOS SP (HELIOBLOCK SX Cream), a method of use of the active ingredient, and a method of manufacturing the active ingredient. The application indicates, and the Food and Drug Administration has confirmed, that a New Drug Application for the human drug product Mexoryl SX (ecamsule) has been filed and is currently undergoing regulatory review before the Food and Drug Administration for permission to market or use the product commercially. Review of the application indicates that, except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the subject patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should be extended for an additional year as required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). Because it is apparent that the regulatory review period will continue beyond the extended expiration date of the patent (June 16, 2006), interim extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate. A fourth interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,585,597 is granted for a period of one year from the extended expiration date of the patent, *i.e.* , until June 16, 2007. Dated: June 12, 2006. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E6-9490 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. PTO-P-2006-0019] Grant of Interim Extension of the Term of U.S. Patent No. 4,850,962; Esteem (Totally Implantable Hearing System) AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Interim Patent Term Extension. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a certificate under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,850,962. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary C. Till by telephone at
(571)272-7755; by mail marked to her attention and addressed to the Commissioner for Patents, Mail Stop Patent Ext., P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by fax marked to her attention at
(571)273-7755, or by e-mail to *Mary.Till@uspto.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 156 of Title 35, United States Code, generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review, and that the patent may be extended for interim periods of up to a year if the regulatory review is anticipated to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent. On March 31, 2006, patent owner, Envoy Medical Corporation, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for an interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,850,962. The patent claims the medical device Esteem (totally implantable hearing system). The application indicates that an Investigational Device Exemption for the medical device Esteem has been filed and is currently undergoing regulatory review before the Food and Drug Administration for permission to market or use the product commercially. Review of the application indicates that except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the subject patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should be extended for one year as required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). Because it is apparent that the regulatory review period will continue beyond the original expiration date of the patent (July 25, 2006), interim extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate. An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,850,962 is granted for a period of one year from the original expiration date of the patent, *i.e.* , until July 25, 2007. Dated: June 12, 2006. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E6-9494 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, July 7, 2006. PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. STATUS: Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100. Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 06-5518 Filed 6-14-06; 1:32 pm]
Connectionstraces to 27
Traces to 27 documents
CFR
9 references not yet in our index
  • 41 USC 46-48c
  • 41 CFR 51
  • 41 USC 47(a)(2)
  • Pub. L. 109-108
  • 119 Stat. 2290
  • 13 CFR 306
  • Pub. L. 108-373
  • 118 Stat. 1756
  • 50 CFR 222
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Additions to Procurement List
U.S.C.§ 3147
U.S.C.§ 3122
C.F.R.§ 300.3
U.S.C.§ 3144
C.F.R.§ 301.4
C.F.R.§ 301.5
Fed. Reg.Notices
C.F.R.§ 306.2
C.F.R.§ 301.8
Cite41 USC 46-48c
Cite41 CFR 51
Cite41 USC 47(a)(2)
Cites 36 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.