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 · 2006-06-26 · Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA · Notices

Notices. Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact

13,741 words·~62 min read·/register/2006/06/26/06-5661·

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

BILLING CODE 3410-ED-M Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Tongue River Watershed, Cavalier and Pembina Counties, ND AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c)of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Tongue River Watershed, Cavalier and Pembina Counties, North Dakota.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Schmidt, Assistant State Conservationist for Water Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 220 E. Rosser Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota, at
(701)530-2074. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, J.R. Flores, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project. The project purpose is to bring Tongue River Watershed Structure M-4 into compliance with current State and Federal dam design and safety criteria; to continue to provide flood protection and to reduce the risk of loss of human life. The planned works of improvement include rehabilitating and upgrading Renwick Dam by installing a roller compacted concrete auxiliary spillway, raising the top of the dam, and modifying the principal spillway to allow a one foot rise to the permanent pool to provide for sediment storage for the extended life of the structure. A two lane access road connecting recreation facilities on the north side of the lake to Icelandic State Park Headquarters on the south side of the park will be constructed on the upstream side of the embankment. The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting James E. Schmidt, Assistant State Conservationist for Water Resources at
(701)530-2074. No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . James E. Schmidt, Assistant State Conservationist for Water Resources. Finding of No Significant Impact for Tongue River Watershed Cavalier and Pembina Counties, North Dakota Introduction The Tongue River Watershed is a federally assisted action authorized for planning under Public Law 83-566, the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. An environmental assessment was undertaken in conjunction with the development of Supplement No. 2 of the watershed plan for the purpose of rehabilitating Renwick Dam 9 (Structure M-4) under Public Law 106-472. This assessment was conducted in consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies as well as with interested organizations and individuals. Data developed during the assessment are available for public review at the following location: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 220 E. Rosser Ave., P.O. Box 1458, Bismarck, North Dakota 58502-1458. Recommended Action Proposed is the rehabilitation of aging flood water retarding structure (M-4) in the Tongue River Watershed (Renwick Dam). This structure will provide flood control for downstream farms, cropland, roads, bridges, and the city of Cavalier. The structure will control 93,300 acres of drainage area. The recommended plan consists of constructing a roller compacted concrete
(RCC)spillway through the existing dam with the park entrance road, on the face of the dam, on the upstream side. The RCC spillway's purpose is to convey the design flood runoff safely through the reservoir without overtopping the earthen embankment. A roller compacted concrete spillway is similar to conventional concrete, yet its material properties allow it to be worked and hauled by traditional earth moving equipment. The embankment will be partially excavated to design grades for construction of a 500-foot-wide auxiliary RCC spillway. The RCC spillway will be constructed as a broad-crested weir. Material excavated from the embankment to construct the spillway will be used as earth-fill to construct a dike in the existing auxiliary spillway and to raise the top of the embankment. Effects of Recommended Action The recommended action protects flood damages to building, transportation services land, crops, prime farmland, and the city of Cavalier. The economic and social well-being of the residents within and downstream of the watershed will remain intact. Renwick Dam provides an important recreation opportunity for the region. The recommended plan will meet the sponsor's objectives of bringing Renwick Dam into compliance with the current dam safety and flood insurance criteria, maintaining the current 100-year floodplain, and addressing the resource concerns identified by the public. As designed, Renwick Dam will meet all current NRCS and State of North Dakota dam safety and performance standards. Studies were completed by both private contractors and State and Federal Agency personnel to evaluate the watershed water coming into and out of the Renwick and Senator Young Dams. Land cover surveys were completed to determine the need for additional land treatment practices in the watershed. A detailed study was completed to determine the existing depth of sediment load in the Renwick Reservoir. Also studied was the impact sediment disturbance would have on the reservoir fishery and other aquatic life. The study revealed Renwick Reservoir sediment pool is estimated to be 50-60 percent full. A water quality/sediment survey conducted in September 2003, indicated between 115 and 150 acre feet of sediment in the pool. Preliminary investigations within the project area revealed no cultural or historic properties within the project area. Land disturbance has occurred through development of the area around the structure with the recreation area on the north side of the reservoir, and disturbance during the actual construction of the structure in the early 1960s. A summary of the project accompanied by maps and aerial photographs was provided to the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO)on August 31, 2001, with a request for concurrence. A passive concurrence from the North Dakota SHPO has been received. The probability of discovering a new site is low, but if there is a significant cultural resource discovery during construction, appropriate notice will be made by NRCS to the SHPO and the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). Consultation and coordination have been and will continue to be used to ensure the provisions of Section 106 of Public Law 89-665 have been met and to include provisions of Public Law 89-523, as amended by Public Law 93-291. NRCS will take action as prescribed in NRCS GM 420, Part 401, to protect or recover any significant cultural resources discovered during construction. Threatened or endangered species may occasionally be present in the watershed but the project will have no adverse impacts on these species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was completed. No wilderness areas are in the watershed. Scenic values will be temporarily decreased at the construction site. Once construction is complete, vegetation will enhance the site to its preconstruction condition. No significant adverse environmental impacts will result from installations except for minor inconveniences to local residents during construction. Alternatives The planned action is the most practical means of reducing the high hazard dam problems. No significant adverse environmental impacts will result from installation of the measures. No other practical alternative achieved the economical, environmental, or social needs of the watershed land users or project sponsors. The no action alternative will not alleviate the dam from being a high hazard structure. The decommissioning of the dam will allow for severe flooding. The RCC auxiliary spillway with the park entrance on top of the Dam will meet the sponsor's needs, but the RCC auxiliary spillway with the park entrance on the upstream side of the dam face was chosen to be more economically feasible to the sponsors. Consultation and Public Participation Formulation of the alternative plan process for Renwick Dam began with formal discussions with the sponsors. At a special meeting held on March 6, 2001, NRCS conveyed State law and policy associated with high hazard dams. The National Dam Safety Inspection Reports of 1978, 1983, 1987, and 1991 listed Renwick Dam in the high hazard category for potential loss of life in the event of failure. Sponsors received information about agency policy associated with Public Law 106-472, The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000, and related alternative plans of action. As a result of these discussions, the sponsors submitted an application on March 14, 2001, to NRCS requesting assistance for rehabilitation of Renwick Dam under the provisions of Public Law 106-472. A public meeting was held on April 16, 2002, to assess proposed measures and their potential impact on resources of concern. As a result of this meeting, fifteen items of concern were identified. A meeting and field tour with the North Dakota Interagency Committee was held on June 18-19, 2002, to assess proposed measures and their potential impact on resources of concern. A site visit with the NRCS National Water Management Center
(NWMC)Staff, NRCS Planning Staff, and an engineer review team was held October 7, 8, and 9, 2002, to exchange a wide variety of ideas for the design. The sponsors recognized the complexity of the project and on May 22, 2003, initiated and adopted a Watershed Management Council (WMC). The WMC membership is made up of one representative from each local organization, and city and county political authorities within the surrounding Cavalier and Pembina watershed area. Through detailed analysis and consultation it was agreed, an increase of the permanent pool by one foot would be necessary to maintain the same volume as that above the sediment pool. Removal of sediment was determined to be an unreasonable component of any proposed action due to a lack of safe disposal sites, high risk of not meeting Clean Water Act laws, and unpredictable costs per unit volume of sediment removed. It was also determined the volumes of sediment proposed to be removed would have little to no benefit towards flood storage and reducing the amount of rehabilitation work required to bring the structure into compliance with the Federal Dam Safety Program. Eleven alternatives were considered with all eleven being analyzed of having a one foot rise above the current elevation. All these alternatives were considered in the evaluation process by NRCS, project sponsors, Federal, State, and county agencies who were involved in part or all of the planning processes related to Supplement No. 2, the proposed rehabilitation of Flood Water Retarding Structure M-4. Conclusion The environmental assessment summarized above indicates this Federal action will not cause significant local, regional, or National impacts on the environment. Therefore, based on the above findings, I have determined that an environmental impact Statement for the Tongue River Watershed (Renwick Dam), Supplement No. 2 is not required. Dated: June 15, 2006. James E. Schmidt, *Assistant State Conservationist for Water Resources.* [FR Doc. E6-10015 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-475-819] Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Ninth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation of Order, in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. *See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of the Ninth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order, In Part* , 71 FR 17440 (April 6, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We preliminarily found that the countervailing duty rates during the period of review (“POR”) for all of the producers/exporters under review are less than 0.5 percent and are, consequently, zero or *de minimis* . We did not receive any comments on our preliminary results, and we have made no revisions. The final net subsidy rates for the reviewed companies are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Twyman or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3534 and
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 24, 1996, the Department published a countervailing duty order on certain pasta (“pasta” or “subject merchandise”) from Italy. *See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta From Italy* , 61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996). On July 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of this countervailing duty order for calendar year 2004, the POR. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). On July 28, 2005, we received a request for review from Pastificio Laporta S.a.s (“Laporta”). On July 29, 2005, we received requests for reviews from the following four producers/exporters of subject merchandise: Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.l. (“Pallante”), Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a. (“Corticella”)/Pasta Combattenti S.p.a. (“Combattenti”) (collectively, “Corticella/Combattenti”), Atar S.r.l. (“Atar”), and Moline e Pastificio Tomasello S.r.l. (“Tomasello”). On August 1, 2005, we received a request for review and a request for revocation from Pasta Lensi S.r.l. (“Pasta Lensi”). 1 ( *See* the “Partial Revocation” section, below.) In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of the review on August 29, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005). 1 Pasta Lensi is the successor-in-interest to IAPC Italia S.r.l. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews: Certain Pasta from Italy* , 68 FR 41553 (July 14, 2003). On August 31, 2005, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to the Commission of the European Union, the Government of Italy (“GOI”), Pallante, Corticella/Combattenti, Pasta Lensi, Tomasello, Laporta, and Atar. We received all responses to our questionnaire in October 2005. We issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents in November 2005, and we received responses to our supplemental questionnaires in November and December 2005. On September 15, 2005, Laporta withdrew its request for review. On September 29, 2005, Tomasello withdrew its request for review. On October 25, 2005, Pallante withdrew its request for review. Based on withdrawals of the requests for review, we rescinded this administrative review for Laporta, Tomasello, and Pallante. *See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 59723 (October 13, 2005) (rescinding review for Laporta); *Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 61788 (October 26, 2005) (rescinding review for Tomasello); and *Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 69515 (November 16, 2005) (rescinding review for Pallante). We have instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate any entries from Pallante, Laporta, and Tomasello during the POR and to assess countervailing duties at the rate that was applied at the time of entry. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(2)(ii) and 351.307(b)(1)(iii), we verified information submitted by the GOI for Pasta Lensi, Atar, Corticella, and Combattenti in Rome, Italy on February 13-15, 2006. *See* “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the Government of Italy in the 9th Administrative Review,” (March 31, 2006). We verified information submitted by Pasta Lensi in Verolanuova, Italy on February 17 and 20, 2006. *See* “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Pasta Lensi S.r.l. in the 9th Administrative Review,” dated March 31, 2006. Since the publication of the *Preliminary Results* , we invited interested parties to submit briefs or request a hearing. The Department did not conduct a hearing in this review because none was requested, and no briefs were received. Period of Review The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or POR, is January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of the order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International Services, Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as of August 4, 2004, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from this order. *See* Memorandum from Eric B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner, dated August 4, 2004, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as of March 13, 2003, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale
(ICEA)are also excluded from this order. *See* Memorandum from Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, dated February 28, 2006, entitled “Recognition of Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale
(ICEA)as a Public Authority for Certifying Organic Pasta from Italy” which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in Room B-099 of the main Department building. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. Scope Rulings The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:
(1)On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See* Memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, dated August 25, 1997, which is on file in the CRU.
(2)On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling finding that multipacks consisting of six one-pound packages of pasta that are shrink-wrapped into a single package are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See* Letter from Susan H. Kuhbach to Barbara P. Sidari, dated July 30, 1998, which is available in the CRU.
(3)On October 23, 1997, the petitioners filed an application requesting that the Department initiate an anti-circumvention investigation of Barilla S.r.l. (“Barilla”), an Italian producer and exporter of pasta. The Department initiated the investigation on December 8, 1997. *See Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry on Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta From Italy* , 62 FR 65673 (December 15, 1997). On October 5, 1998, the Department issued its final determination that, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), effective January 1, 1995 (“the Act”), circumvention of the antidumping order on pasta from Italy was occurring by reason of exports of bulk pasta from Italy produced by Barilla that subsequently were repackaged in the United States into packages of five pounds or less for sale in the United States. *See Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 63 FR 54672 (October 13, 1998).
(4)On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable industry tolerances is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999, we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See* Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated May 24, 1999, which is available in the CRU.
(5)On April 27, 2000, the Department self-initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.'s importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes circumvention with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(b). *See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000). On September 19, 2003, we published an affirmative finding of the anti-circumvention inquiry. *See Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determinations of Circumvention of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 68 FR 54888 (September 19, 2003). Partial Revocation On August 1, 2005, Pasta Lensi requested revocation of the countervailing duty order as it pertains to its sales. Under section 751(d)(1) of the Act, the Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” a countervailing duty order upon completion of a review. Although Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is set forth under 19 CFR 351.222. Under 19 CFR 351.222(c)(3)(i), in determining whether to revoke a countervailing duty order in part, the Secretary will consider:
(A)whether one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have not applied for or received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise for a period of at least five consecutive years;
(B)whether, for any exporter or producer that the Secretary previously has determined to have received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise, the exporter or producer agrees in writing to their immediate reinstatement in the order, if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, has received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise; and
(C)whether the continued application of the countervailing duty order is otherwise necessary to offset subsidization. A request for revocation of an order in part must address these four elements, per 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii), in writing:
(A)The company's certification that it has not applied for or received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise for a period of at least five consecutive years;
(B)the company's certification that it will not apply for or receive any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise from any program the Secretary has found countervailable;
(C)the company's certification that during each of the consecutive years, the company sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities; and
(D)the company's agreement in writing to their immediate reinstatement in the order, if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, has received any net countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise. We find that the request from Pasta Lensi meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. Pasta Lensi's revocation request includes the necessary certifications in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii). With regard to the criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(iii)(A), our final results show that Pasta Lensi did not receive countervailable subsidies during the POR and, therefore, the net subsidy rate for Pasta Lensi is zero. *See* “Final Results of Review” section, below. In addition, Pasta Lensi had zero net subsidy rates in the four previous administrative reviews in which it was involved. *See Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Eighth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 37084 (June 28, 2005), covering the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003; *Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 70657 (December 7, 2004), covering the period January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002; *Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Sixth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 48599 (August 14, 2003), covering the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001; and Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Fifth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 52452 (August 12, 2002), covering the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. Based on our examination of the data submitted by Pasta Lensi, we find that Pasta Lensi qualifies for revocation of the order pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(c)(3) and 351.222(e)(2)(iii). Therefore, we are revoking the order, in part, with respect to pasta from Italy produced and exported by Pasta Lensi. Final Results of Review Neither the petitioners nor respondents commented on the preliminary results, and we found that no changes were warranted. Therefore, we have made no changes to the net countervailable subsidy rates for the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for Atar and Corticella/Combattenti. Pasta Lensi had no countervailable subsidies. Listed below are the programs we examined in the review and our findings with respect to each of these programs. For a complete analysis of the programs found to be countervailable, and the basis for the Department's determination, *see Preliminary Results* . Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate Pasta Lensi S.r.l. 0.00 percent Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.a./Pasta Combattenti S.p.a. 0.12 percent (de minimis) Atar S.r.l. 0.20 percent (de minimis) *I. Program Determined to be Countervailable* A. Export Marketing Grants Under Law 304/90 ---------- 0.12 percent Note: applies to Corticella/Combattenti only. *B. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions* - Sgravi (Article 44 of Law 448/01) ---------- 0.20 percent Note: applies to Atar only. *II. Programs Determined to be Not Countervailable* A. Social Security Reductions and Exemptions - Sgravi (Law 407/90, Law 223/91, Law 337/90, and Article 120 of Law 388/00) B. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Fairs and Exhibition Grants C. Tremonti Law 383/01 (Formerly Law 357/94 and 489/94) *III. Programs Determined to Not be Used* A. Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92 B. Industrial Development Loans Under Law 64/86 C. European Regional Development Fund Grants D. Law 236/93 Training Grants E. Law 1329/65 Interest Contributions (Sabatini Law) (Formerly Lump-Sum Interest Payment Under the Sabatini Law for Companies in Southern Italy) F. Development Grants Under Law 30 of 1984 G. Law 908/55 Fondo di Rotazione Iniziative Economiche (Revolving Fund for Economic Initiatives) Loans H. Industrial Development Grants Under Law 64/86 I. Law 317/91 Benefits for Innovative Investments J. Brescia Chamber of Commerce Training Grants K. Ministerial Decree 87/02 L. Law 10/91 Grants to Fund Energy Conservation M. Export Restitution Payments N. Export Credits Under Law 227/77 O. Capital Grants Under Law 675/77 P. Retraining Grants Under Law 675/77 Q. Interest Contributions on Bank Loans Under Law 675/77 R. Preferential Financing for Export Promotion Under Law 394/81 S. Urban Redevelopment Under Law 181 T. Industrial Development Grants under Law 183/76 U. Interest Subsidies Under Law 598/94 V. Duty-Free Import Rights W. European Social Fund Grants X. Law 113/86 Training Grants Y.European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Z. Law 341/95 Interest Contributions on Debt Consolidation Loans (Formerly Debt Consolidation Law 341/95) AA. Interest Grants Financed by IRI Bonds BB. Grant Received Pursuant to the Community Initiative Concerning the Preparation of Enterprises for the Single Market (PRISMA) *IV. Programs Determined To Have Been Terminated* A. Regional Tax Exemptions Under IRAP B. VAT Reductions Under Laws 64/86 and 675/55 C. Corporate Income Tax (IRPEG) Exemptions D. Remission of Taxes on Export Credit Insurance Under Article 33 of Law 227/77 E. Export Marketing Grants Under Law 304/90 F. Tremonti Law 383/01 The calculations will be disclosed to the interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Because the countervailing duty rates for all of the above-noted companies are either less than 0.5 percent and, consequently, *de minimis* , or zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of these companies during the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, without regard to countervailing duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c). The Department will issue appropriate instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of this review. For all other companies that were not reviewed (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.L., which are excluded from the order), the Department has directed CBP to assess countervailing duties on all entries between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004, at the rates in effect at the time of entry. We are revoking the order, in part, with respect to pasta from Italy produced and exported by Pasta Lensi. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for pasta produced and exported by Pasta Lensi that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2005, and will instruct CBP to refund any cash deposits for such entries. Since the countervailable subsidy rates for Corticella/Combattenti and Atar are *de minimis* , the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of entries, but to collect no cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the above-noted companies on all shipments of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.L., which are excluded from the order), we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 20, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-10030 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 060806C] Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Harbor Activities Related to the Delta IV/Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA)to The Boeing Company (Boeing) to take small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to harbor activities related to the Delta IV/Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
(EELV)at south Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA (VAFB). DATES: Effective June 21, 2006, to June 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the application are available by writing to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning the contact listed here. A copy of the application containing a list of references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this address, by telephoning the contact listed here (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) or online at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie Harrison,
(301)713-2289, ext. 166 or Monica DeAngelis,
(562)980-3232. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as: an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except for certain categories of activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [“Level A harassment”]; or
(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [“Level B harassment”]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must determine whether to issue the authorization with appropriate conditions. Summary of Request On February 28, 2006, NMFS received an application from Boeing requesting an authorization for the harassment of small numbers of Pacific harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina richardsi* ) and California sea lions ( *Zalophus californianus* ) incidental to harbor activities related to the Delta IV/EELV, including: transport vessel operations, cargo movement activities, harbor maintenance dredging, and kelp habitat mitigation operations. In addition, northern elephant seals ( *Mirounga angustirostris* ) may also be incidentally harassed but in even smaller numbers. Incidental Harassment Authorizations
(IHAs)were previously issued to Boeing in 2002 (67 FR 36151), 2003 (68 FR 36540), 2004 (69 FR 29696), and 2005 (70 FR 30697). No work and, therefore, no monitoring was conducted under the 2005 IHA. The harbor where activities will take place is on south VAFB approximately 2.5 mi (4.02 km) south of Point Arguello, CA and approximately 1 mi (1.61 km) north of the nearest marine mammal pupping site (i.e., Rocky Point). Additional background relating to this application and the scope of the activities is set forth in the proposed notice (71 FR 26069, May 3, 2006) and is not repeated here. The activities to be conducted have not changed between the notice of the proposed activities and this final notice announcing the issuance of the IHA. Specified Activities *Delta Mariner* off-loading operations and associated cargo movements will occur a maximum of 3 times per year, each of which is estimated to take approximately between 14 and 18 hours in good weather. To accommodate the *Delta Mariner* , the harbor will need to be dredged, removing approximately 3,000 to 5,000 cubic yards of sediment per dredging. Dredge operations, from set-up to tear-down, would continue 24-hours a day for 3 to 5 weeks. Sedimentation surveys have shown that initial dredging indicates that maintenance dredging should be required annually or twice per year, depending on the hardware delivery schedule. A more detailed description of the work proposed for 2006/2007 is contained in the re-application which is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ) and in the Final US Air Force Environmental Assessment for Harbor Activities Associated with the Delta IV Program at Vandenberg Air Force Base (ENSR International, 2001). Comments and Responses On May 3, 2006 (71 FR 26069), NMFS published a notice of receipt of application of an IHA on MBNMS's request to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to harbor activities related to the Delta IV/EELV, including: transport vessel operations, cargo movement activities, harbor maintenance dredging, and kelp habitat mitigation and requested comments, information and suggestions concerning the request. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received one comment. Comment: The commenter opposed the issuance of permits to allow killing of marine mammals. *Response:* NMFS does not believe that the authorized activities will result in the death of any marine mammals, nor does this IHA authorize any marine mammal mortality. Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity The marine mammal species likely to be harassed incidental to harbor activities at south VAFB are the Pacific harbor seal, California sea lion, and northern elephant seal, which haul out in the area where these activities are conducted. None of the haul-out areas near these activities are used for breeding, molting, or mating. A more detailed discussion of the status of these stocks and their occurrence at VAFB, as well as other marine mammal species that occur at VAFB, was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (71 FR 26069, May 3, 2006). Potential Effects of Activities on Marine Mammals The primary impacts to marine mammals from these activities are expected to be short-term behavioral reactions in response to the acoustic and visual stimuli produced by the heavy machinery used. NMFS anticipates that no injury will result from these actions. A discussion of the sound levels produced by the equipment, behavioral reactions of marine mammals to loud noises or looming visual stimuli, and some specific observations of the response of marine mammals to this activity gathered during previous monitoring were presented in the proposed IHA (71 FR 26069, May 3, 2006) and will not be repeated here. For a further discussion of the anticipated effects of the planned activities on pinnipeds in the area, please refer to the application, NMFS 2005 Environmental Assessment
(EA)and ENSR International's 2001 Final EA. Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected to be Harassed Boeing estimates that a maximum of 43 harbor seals per day may be hauled out near the south VAFB harbor, with a daily average of 21 seals sighted when tidal conditions were favorable during previous dredging operations in the harbor. Considering the maximum and average number of seals hauled out per day, assuming that the seals may be seen twice a day, and using a maximum total of 73 operating days in 2006-2007, NMFS estimates that a maximum of 767 to 1570 Pacific harbor seals may be subject to Level B harassment out of a total estimated population of 31,600. These numbers are small relative to this population size (2.4 - 5.0 percent). During wharf modification activities, a maximum of six California sea lions were seen hauling out in a single day. Based on the above-mentioned calculation, NMFS believes that a maximum of 219 California sea lions may be subject to Level B harassment out of a total estimated population of 240,000. These numbers are small relative to this population size (less than 0.1 percent). Up to 10 northern elephant seals (because they may be in nearby waters) may be subject to Level B harassment out of a total estimated population of 101,000. These numbers are small relative to this population size (less than 0.01 percent). Possible Effects of Activities on Marine Mammal Habitat The anticipated negative effects of dredging and kelp mitigation (short-term increase in noise and sedimentation) will be short-term and are not expected to result in a loss or modification to the habitat used by Pacific harbor seals, California sea lions, or northern elephant seals that haul out near the south VAFB harbor. Additional details were provided in the proposed IHA (71 FR 26069, May 3, 2006). Possible Effects of Activities on Subsistence Needs There are no subsistence uses for pinnipeds in California waters, and thus, there are no anticipated effects on subsistence needs. Mitigation To reduce the potential for disturbance from visual and acoustic stimuli associated with the activities Boeing and/or its designees will undertake the following marine mammal mitigating measures:
(1)If activities occur during nighttime hours, lighting will be turned on before dusk and left on the entire night to avoid startling pinnipeds at night;
(2)Activities will be initiated before dusk;
(3)Construction noises must be kept constant (i.e., not interrupted by periods of quiet in excess of 30 minutes) while pinnipeds are present;
(4)If activities cease for longer than 30 minutes and pinnipeds are in the area, start-up of activities will include a gradual increase in noise levels;
(5)A NMFS-approved marine mammal observer will visually monitor the pinnipeds on the beach adjacent to the harbor and on rocks for any flushing or other behaviors as a result of Boeing's activities (see Monitoring); and
(6)To the extent possible, the *Delta Mariner* and accompanying vessels will enter the harbor only when the tide is too high for harbor seals to haul-out on the rocks. The vessel will reduce speed 1.5 to 2 knots (2.8-3.7 km/hr) once the vessel is within 3 mi (4.83 km) of the harbor. The vessel will enter the harbor stern first, approaching the wharf and mooring dolphins at less than 0.75 knot (1.4 km/hr). Monitoring As part of its 2002 application, Boeing provided a proposed monitoring plan for assessing impacts to harbor seals from the activities at south VAFB harbor and for determining when mitigation measures should be employed. NMFS proposes the same plan for this IHA. A NMFS-approved and VAFB-designated biologically trained observer will monitor the area for pinnipeds during all harbor activities. During nighttime activities, the harbor area will be illuminated, and the monitor will use a night vision scope. Monitoring activities will consist of:
(1)Conducting baseline observation of pinnipeds in the project area prior to initiating project activities;
(2)Conducting and recording observations on pinnipeds in the vicinity of the harbor for the duration of the activity occurring when tides are low enough for pinnipeds to haul out (2 ft, 0.61 m, or less); and
(3)Conducting post-construction observations of pinniped haul-outs in the project area to determine whether animals disturbed by the project activities return to the haul-out. Monitoring results from previous years of these activities have been reviewed and incorporated into the analysis of potential effects in this document, as well as the take estimates. Reporting Boeing will notify NMFS 2 weeks prior to initiation of each activity. After each activity is completed, Boeing will provide a report to NMFS within 90 days. This report will provide dates and locations of specific activities, details of seal behavioral observations, and estimates of the amount and nature of all takes of seals by harassment or in other ways. In addition, the report will include information on the weather, the tidal state, the horizontal visibility, and the composition (species, gender, and age class) and locations of haul-out group(s). In the unanticipated event that any marine mammal is injured or killed as a result of these activities, Boeing or its designee shall report the incident to NMFS immediately. Endangered Species Act This action will not affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)that are under the jurisdiction of NMFS. VAFB formally consulted with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS)in 1998 on the possible take of southern sea otters during Boeing's harbor activities at south VAFB. A Biological Opinion was issued in August 2001, which concluded that the proposed activities were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the southern sea otter. The activities covered by this IHA are analyzed in that Biological Opinion, and this IHA does not modify the action in a manner that was not previously analyzed. National Environmental Policy Act In 2001, the USAF prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)for Harbor Activities Associated with the Delta IV Program at Vandenberg Air Force Base. In 2005, NMFS prepared an EA supplementing the information contained in the USAF EA and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the issuance of an IHA for Boeing's harbor activities in accordance with section 6.01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrative Order
(NAO)216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999). The proposed activity is within the scope of NMFS'2005 EA and FONSI. Conclusions NMFS has issued an IHA to Boeing for harbor activities related to the Delta IV/EELV to take place at south VAFB over a 1-year period, contingent upon adherence to the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. NMFS has determined that the impact of harbor activities related to the Delta IV/EELV at VAFB (transport vessel operations, cargo movement activities, harbor maintenance dredging, and kelp habitat mitigation) will result in the Level B Harassment of small numbers of Pacific harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant seals. The effects of Boeing's harbor activities are expected to be in the form of short-term and localized behavioral changes and no take by injury or death is anticipated or authorized. NMFS has further determined that these takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such marine mammal species and stocks for subsistence uses. Authorization NMFS has issued an IHA to take marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to conducting harbor activities at VAFB to Boeing for a 1-year period, provided the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are undertaken. Dated: June 19, 2006. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-10044 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No.: PTO-P-2006-0014] Changes to Practice for Petitions in Patent Applications To Make Special and for Accelerated Examination AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has established procedures under which the examination of a patent application may be accelerated. Under one of these procedures, the USPTO will advance an application out of turn for examination if the applicant files a grantable petition to make special under the accelerated examination program. The USPTO is revising its procedures for applications made special under the accelerated examination program with the goal of completing examination within twelve months of the filing date of the application. The USPTO is similarly revising the procedures for other petitions to make special, except those based on applicant's health or age or the recently announced Patent Prosecution Highway
(PPH)pilot program between the USPTO and the Japan Patent Office. DATES: *Effective Date:* The change in practice in this notice applies to petitions to make special filed on or after August 25, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pinchus Laufer, Detailee, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at
(571)272-7726, or by facsimile at
(571)273-7726. Comments concerning petition to make special practice may be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to *MPEPFeedback@uspto.gov* , or submitted by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450. Any inquiries concerning electronic filing of the application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center
(EBC)at
(866)217-9197. Any inquiries concerning a specific petition to make special should be directed to the appropriate Technology Center Special Program Examiner. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: New patent applications are normally taken up for examination in the order of their United States filing date. The USPTO has a procedure for requesting accelerated examination under which an application will be advanced out of turn for examination if the applicant files a petition to make special with the appropriate showing. *See* 37 CFR 1.102 and *Manual of Patent Examining Procedure* § 708.02
(VIII)(8th ed. 2001) (Rev. 3, August 2005) (MPEP). The USPTO is revising its procedures for applications made special under the accelerated examination program with the goal of completing examination within twelve months of the filing date of the application. *See* Part VIII (subsection The Twelve-Month Goal) for more information. The USPTO is similarly revising the procedures for other petitions to make special, except those based on applicant's health or age or the PPH pilot program. Specifically, other petitions to make special ( *i.e.* , petitions based on: manufacture, infringement, environmental quality, energy, recombinant DNA, superconductivity materials, HIV/AIDS and cancer, countering terrorism, and biotechnology applications filed by small entities ( *see* MPEP § 708.02)) will be processed and examined using the revised procedure for accelerated examination. Thus, all petitions to make special, except those based on applicant's health or age or the PPH pilot program, will be required to comply with the requirements of petitions to make special under the accelerated examination program that are set forth in this notice. Any petition to make special, other than those based on applicant's health or age or the PPH pilot program, filed on or after the effective date must meet the requirements set forth in this notice. Applications filed before the effective date will not be eligible for the revised accelerated examination program. Until the effective date, applicant may file a petition to make special in an application filed before the effective date by complying with the previous guidelines and requirements in MPEP § 708.02 (I-II, and V-XII). A petition to make special filed after the effective date will only be granted if it is based upon applicant's health or age or is under the PPH pilot program, or if it complies with the requirements set forth in this notice. See Part VIII, for more information on eligibility. *Part I. Requirements for Petitions to Make Special under Accelerated Examination:* A new application may be granted accelerated examination status under the following conditions:
(1)The application must be filed with a petition to make special under the accelerated examination program accompanied by either the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) or a statement that the claimed subject matter is directed to environmental quality, energy, or countering terrorism. *See* 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2). Applicant should use form PTO/SB/28 for filing the petition.
(2)The application must be a non-reissue utility or design application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).
(3)The application, petition, and required fees must be filed electronically using the USPTO's electronic filing system (EFS), or EFS-Web. If the USPTO's EFS and EFS-Web are not available to the public during the normal business hours for these systems at the time of filing the application, applicant may file the application, other papers and fees by mail accompanied by a statement that EFS and EFS-Web were not available during the normal business hours, but the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application. *See* Part VIII (subsection The Twelve-Month Goal) for more information.
(4)At the time of filing, the application must be complete under 37 CFR 1.51 and in condition for examination. For example, the application must be filed together with the basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee, and application size fee (if applicable), and an executed oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. *See* Part VIII (subsection Conditions for Examination) for more information.
(5)The application must contain three or fewer independent claims and twenty or fewer total claims. The application must also not contain any multiple dependent claims. By filing a petition to make special under the accelerated examination program the applicant is agreeing not to separately argue the patentability of any dependent claim during any appeal in the application. Specifically, the applicant is agreeing that the dependent claims will be grouped together with and not argued separately from the independent claim from which they depend in any appeal brief filed in the application (37 CFR 41.37(c)(1)(vii)). The petition must include a statement that applicant will agree not to separately argue the patentability of any dependent claim during any appeal in the application. See form PTO/SB/28.
(6)The claims must be directed to a single invention. If the USPTO determines that all the claims presented are not directed to a single invention, applicant must make an election without traverse in a telephonic interview. The petition must include a statement that applicant will agree to make an election without traverse in a telephonic interview. See form PTO/SB/28.
(7)The applicant must be willing to have an interview (including an interview before a first Office action) to discuss the prior art and any potential rejections or objections with the intention of clarifying and possibly resolving all issues with respect to patentability at that time. The petition must include a statement that applicant will agree to have such an interview when requested by the examiner. See form PTO/SB/28.
(8)At the time of filing, applicant must provide a statement that a preexamination search was conducted, including an identification of the field of search by United States class and subclass and the date of the search, where applicable, and for database searches, the search logic or chemical structure or sequence used as a query, the name of the file or files searched and the database service, and the date of the search.
(A)This preexamination search must involve U.S. patents and patent application publications, foreign patent documents, and non-patent literature, unless the applicant can justify with reasonable certainty that no references more pertinent than those already identified are likely to be found in the eliminated source and includes such a justification with this statement.
(B)This preexamination search must be directed to the claimed invention and encompass all of the features of the claims, giving the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation.
(C)The preexamination search must also encompass the disclosed features that may be claimed. An amendment to the claims (including any new claim) that is not encompassed by the preexamination search or an updated accelerated examination support document ( *see* item 9) will be treated as not fully responsive and will not be entered. *See* Part IV (Reply by Applicant) for more information.
(D)A search report from a foreign patent office will not satisfy this preexamination search requirement unless the search report satisfies the requirements set forth in this notice for a preexamination search.
(E)Any statement in support of a petition to make special must be based on a good faith belief that the preexamination search was conducted in compliance with these requirements. *See* 37 CFR 1.56 and 10.18.
(9)At the time of filing, applicant must provide in support of the petition an accelerated examination support document.
(A)An accelerated examination support document must include an information disclosure statement
(IDS)in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98 citing each reference deemed most closely related to the subject matter of each of the claims.
(B)For each reference cited, the accelerated examination support document must include an identification of all the limitations in the claims that are disclosed by the reference specifying where the limitation is disclosed in the cited reference.
(C)The accelerated examination support document must include a detailed explanation of how each of the claims are patentable over the references cited with the particularity required by 37 CFR 1.111(b) and (c).
(D)The accelerated examination support document must include a concise statement of the utility of the invention as defined in each of the independent claims (unless the application is a design application).
(E)The accelerated examination support document must include a showing of where each limitation of the claims finds support under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 in the written description of the specification. If applicable, the showing must also identify:
(1)Each means- (or step-) plus-function claim element that invokes consideration under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6; and
(2)the structure, material, or acts in the specification that correspond to each means- (or step-) plus-function claim element that invokes consideration under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6. If the application claims the benefit of one or more applications under title 35, United States Code, the showing must also include where each limitation of the claims finds support under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 in each such application in which such support exists.
(F)The accelerated examination support document must identify any cited references that may be disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Pub. L. 108-453, 118 Stat. 3596 (2004)). *Part II. Decision on Petition To Make Special:* Applicant will be notified of the decision by the deciding official. If the application and/or petition does not meet all the prerequisites set forth in this notice for the application to be granted special status (including a determination that the search is deemed to be insufficient), the applicant will be notified of the defects and the application will remain in the status of a new application awaiting action in its regular turn. In those instances in which the petition or accelerated examination support document is defective in one or more requirements, applicant will be given a single opportunity to perfect the petition or accelerated examination support document within a time period of one month (no extensions under 37 CFR 1.136(a)). This opportunity to perfect a petition does not apply to applications that are not in condition for examination on filing. *See* Part VIII (subsection Condition for Examination). If the document is satisfactorily corrected in a timely manner, the petition will then be granted, but the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing date of the application. Once a petition has been granted, prosecution will proceed according to the procedure set forth below. *Part III. The Initial Action on the Application by the Examiner:* Once the application is granted special status, the application will be docketed and taken up for action expeditiously ( *e.g.* , within two weeks of the granting of special status). If it is determined that all the claims presented are not directed to a single invention, the telephone restriction practice set forth in MPEP § 812.01 will be followed. Applicant must make an election without traverse during the telephonic interview. If applicant refuses to make an election without traverse, or the examiner cannot reach the applicant after a reasonable effort, the examiner will treat the first claimed invention (the invention of claim 1) as constructively elected without traverse for examination. Continuing applications ( *e.g.* , a divisional application directed to the non-elected inventions) will not automatically be given special status based on papers filed with the petition in the parent application. Each continuing application must on its own meet all requirements for special status. If the USPTO determines that a possible rejection or other issue must be addressed, the examiner will telephone the applicant to discuss the issue and any possible amendment or submission to resolve such issue. The USPTO will not issue an Office action (other than a notice of allowance) unless either:
(1)An interview was conducted but did not result in the application being placed in condition for allowance; or
(2)there is a determination that an interview is unlikely to result in the application being placed in condition for allowance. Furthermore, prior to the mailing of any Office action rejecting the claims, the USPTO will conduct a conference to review the rejections set forth in the Office action. If an Office action other than a notice of allowance or a final Office action is mailed, the Office action will set a shortened statutory period of one-month or thirty-days, whichever is longer. No extensions of this shortened statutory period under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be permitted. Failure to timely file a reply will result in abandonment of the application. *See* Parts V and VI for more information on post-allowance and after-final procedures. *Part IV. Reply by Applicant:* A reply to an Office action must be limited to the rejections, objections, and requirements made. Any amendment that attempts to:
(1)Add claims which would result in more than three independent claims, or more than twenty total claims, pending in the application;
(2)present claims not encompassed by the preexamination search ( *see* item 8 of Part I) or an updated accelerated examination support document ( *see* next paragraph); or
(3)present claims that are directed to a nonelected invention or an invention other than previously claimed in the application, will be treated as not fully responsive and will not be entered. *See* Part VIII (subsection Reply Not Fully responsive) for more information. For any amendment to the claims (including any new claim) that is not encompassed by the accelerated examination support document in Part I, item 9, applicant is required to provide an updated accelerated examination support document that encompasses the amended or new claims at the time of filing the amendment. Failure to provide such updated accelerated examination support document at the time of filing the amendment will cause the amendment to be treated as not fully responsive and not to be entered. *See* Part VIII (subsection Reply Not Fully Responsive) for more information. Any IDS filed with an updated accelerated examination support document must also comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Any reply or other papers must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the papers are not filed electronically via EFS-Web, or the reply is not fully responsive, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application. *Part V. Post-Allowance Processing:* The mailing of a notice of allowance is the final disposition for purposes of the twelve-month goal for the program. In response to a notice of allowance, applicant must pay the issue fee within three months from the date of mailing of the Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due (form PTOL-85) to avoid abandonment of the application. In order for the application to be expeditiously issued as a patent, the applicant must also:
(1)Pay the issue fee (and any outstanding fees due) within one month from the mailing date of the form PTOL-85; and
(2)not file any post-allowance papers that are not required by the USPTO ( *e.g.* , an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 that was not requested by the USPTO). *Part VI. After-Final and Appeal Procedures:* The mailing of a final Office action or the filing of a notice of appeal, whichever is earlier, is the final disposition for purposes of the twelve-month goal for the program. Prior to the mailing of a final Office action, the USPTO will conduct a conference to review the rejections set forth in the final Office action ( *i.e.* , the type of conference conducted in an application on appeal when the applicant requests a pre-appeal brief conference). In order for the application to be expeditiously forwarded to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
(BPAI)for a decision, applicant must:
(1)Promptly file the notice of appeal, appeal brief, and appeal fees; and
(2)not request a pre-appeal brief conference. A pre-appeal brief conference would not be of value in an application under a final Office action because the examiner will have already conducted such a conference prior to mailing the final Office action. During the appeal process, the application will be treated in accordance with the normal appeal procedures. The USPTO will continue to treat the application special under the accelerated examination program after the decision by the BPAI. Any after-final amendment, affidavit, or other evidence filed under 37 CFR 1.116 or 41.33 must also meet the requirements set forth in Part IV (Reply by Applicant). If applicant files a request for continued examination
(RCE)under 37 CFR 1.114 with a submission and fee, the submission must meet the reply requirements under 37 CFR 1.111 ( *see* 37 CFR 1.114(c)) and the requirements set forth in Part IV (Reply by Applicant). The filing of the RCE is a final disposition for purposes of the twelve-month goal for the program. The application will retain its special status and remain in the accelerated examination program. Thus, the examiner will continue to examine the application in accordance with the procedures set forth in Part III and any subsequent replies filed by applicant must meet the requirements of Part IV. The goal of the program will then be to reach a final disposition of the application within twelve months from the filing of the RCE. *Part VII. Proceedings Outside the Normal Examination Process:* If an application becomes involved in proceedings outside the normal examination process ( *e.g.* , a secrecy order, national security review, interference, or petitions under 37 CFR 1.181-1.183), the USPTO will treat the application special under the accelerated examination program before and after such proceedings. During those proceedings, however, the application will not be accelerated. For example, during an interference proceeding, the application will be treated in accordance with the normal interference procedures and will not be treated under the accelerated examination program. Once any one of these proceedings is completed, the USPTO will process the application expeditiously under the accelerated examination program until it reaches final disposition, but that may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application. *Part VIII. More Information: Eligibility:* Any non-reissue utility or design application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after the effective date of this program is eligible for the revised accelerated examination program. The following types of filings are not eligible for this revised accelerated examination program: Plant applications, reissue applications, applications entering the national stage from an international application after compliance with 35 U.S.C. 371, reexamination proceedings, RCEs under 37 CFR 1.114 (unless the application was previously granted special status under the program), and petitions to make special based on applicant's health or age or under the PPH pilot program. Rather than participating in this revised accelerated examination program, applicants for a design patent may participate in the expedited examination program by filing a request in compliance with the guidelines set forth in MPEP § 1504.30. *See* 37 CFR 1.155. *Form:* Applicant should use form PTO/SB/28 for filing a petition to make special, other than those based on applicant's health or age or the PPH pilot program. The form is available on EFS-Web and on the USPTO's Internet Web site at *http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/index.html.* *Conditions for Examination:* The application must be in condition for examination at the time of filing. This means the application must include the following:
(A)Basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee, under 37 CFR 1.16 ( *see* MPEP section 607(I)),
(B)Application size fee under 37 CFR 1.16(s) (if the specification and drawings exceed 100 sheets of paper) ( *see* MPEP section 607(II));
(C)An executed oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63;
(D)A specification (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52) containing a description (37 CFR 1.71) and claims in compliance with 37 CFR 1.75;
(E)A title and an abstract in compliance with 37 CFR 1.72;
(F)Drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84;
(G)Electronic submissions of sequence listings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.821(c) or (e), large tables, or computer listings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.96, submitted via the USPTO's electronic filing system
(EFS)in ASCII text as part of an associated file (if applicable);
(H)Foreign priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) identified in the executed oath or declaration or an application data sheet (if applicable);
(I)Domestic benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, or 365(c) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 ( *e.g.* , the specific reference to the prior application must be submitted in the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet, and for any benefit claim to a non-English language provisional application, the application must include a statement that:
(a)An English language translation, and
(b)a statement that the translation is accurate, have been filed in the provisional application) (if applicable);
(J)English language translation under 37 CFR 1.52(d), a statement that the translation is accurate, and the processing fee under 37 CFR 1.17(i) (if the specification is in a non-English language);
(K)No preliminary amendments present on the filing date of the application; and
(L)No petition under 37 CFR 1.47 for a non-signing inventor. Furthermore, if the application is a design application, the application must also comply with the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.151-1.154. Applicant should also provide a suggested classification, by class and subclass, for the application on the transmittal letter, petition, or an application data sheet as set forth in 37 CFR 1.76(b)(3) so that the application can be expeditiously processed. The petition to make special will be dismissed if the application omits an item or includes a paper that causes the Office of Initial Patent Examination
(OIPE)to mail a notice during the formality review ( *e.g.* , a notice of incomplete application, notice to file missing parts, notice to file corrected application papers, notice of omitted items, or notice of informal application). The opportunity to perfect a petition (Part II) does not apply to applications that are not in condition for examination on filing. *Reply Not Fully Responsive:* If a reply to a non-final Office action is not fully responsive, but a *bona fide* attempt to advance the application to final action, the examiner may provide one month or thirty-days, whichever is longer, for applicant to supply the omission or a fully responsive reply. No extensions of this time period under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be permitted. Failure to timely file the omission or a fully responsive reply will result in abandonment of the application. If the reply is not a *bona fide* attempt or it is a reply to a final Office action, no additional time period will be given. The time period set forth in the previous Office action will continue to run. *Withdrawal From Accelerated Examination:* There is no provision for “withdrawal” from special status under the accelerated examination program. An applicant may abandon the application that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program in favor of a continuing application, and the continuing application will not be given special status under the accelerated examination program unless the continuing application is filed with a petition to make special under the accelerated examination program. The filing of an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114, however, will not result in an application being withdrawn from special status under the accelerated examination program. *The Twelve-Month Goal:* The objective of the accelerated examination program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months from the filing date of the application. The twelve-month goal is successfully achieved when one of the following final dispositions occurs:
(1)The mailing of a notice of allowance;
(2)the mailing of a final Office action;
(3)the filing of an RCE; or
(4)the abandonment of the application. The final disposition of an application, however, may occur later than the twelve-month timeframe in certain situations ( *e.g.* , an IDS citing new prior art after the mailing of a first Office action). *See* Part VII for more information on other events that may cause examination to extend beyond this twelve-month time frame. In any event, however, this twelve-month timeframe is simply a goal. Any failure to meet the twelve-month goal or other issues relating to this twelve-month goal are neither petitionable nor appealable matters. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* This notice involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The collection of information involved in this notice has been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under OMB control number 0651-0031. The Office has submitted a Change Worksheet to OMB for review of form PTO/SB/28 Petition to Make Special Under the Accelerated Examination. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Section 708.02 of the *Manual of Patent Examining Procedure* will be revised in due course to reflect this change in practice. Dated: June 20, 2006. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E6-10022 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Designation under the Textile and Apparel Commercial Availability Provisions of the United States Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) June 21, 2006. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
(CITA)ACTION: Designation. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2006. SUMMARY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
(CITA)has determined that certain 100 percent cotton, yarn-dyed, 3- or 4-thread twill weave, flannel fabrics, of combed, ring spun single yarns, of the specifications detailed below, classified in subheading 5208.43.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), for use in products in Categories 340, 341, and 350, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. The CITA hereby designates products in Categories 340, 341, and 350 that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more eligible CBTPA beneficiary countries from such fabrics, as eligible for quota free and duty free treatment under the textile and apparel commercial availability provisions of the CBTPA and eligible under HTSUS subheading 9820.11.27 to enter free of quota and duties, provided that all other fabrics in the referenced apparel articles are wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria K. Dybczak, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482 3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 213(b)(2)(A)(v)(II) of CBERA, as added by Section 211(a) of the CBTPA; Presidential Proclamation 7351 of October 2, 2000; Section 6 of Executive Order No. 13191 of January 17, 2001. BACKGROUND: The commercial availability provision of the CBTPA provides for duty free and quota free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit to shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary CBTPA country from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States if it has been determined that such yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and certain procedural requirements have been met. In Presidential Proclamation 7351, the President proclaimed that this treatment would apply to apparel articles from fabrics or yarn designated by the appropriate U.S. government authority in the **Federal Register** . In Executive Order 13191, the President authorized CITA to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On February 7, 2006, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Sandler, Travis, and Rosenberg, P.A., on behalf of B*W*A, alleging that certain 100 percent cotton, yarn-dyed 3- or 4-thread twill weave, flannel fabrics, of combed, ring spun single yarns, of the specifications detailed below, classified in HTSUS subheading 5208.43.0000, for use in woven cotton shirts, blouses, and dressing gowns, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. It requested quota and duty free treatment under the CBTPA for woven cotton shirts, blouses, and dressing gowns that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from such fabrics. On February 13, 2006, CITA requested public comment on the petition. See **Request for Public Comment on Commercial Availability Petition under the United States - Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA)** (71 FR 7542). On March 1, 2006, CITA and the U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR)offered to hold consultations with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate (collectively, the Congressional Committees). On March 22, 2006 the U.S. International Trade Commission provided advice on the petition. Based on the information and advice received and its understanding of the industry, CITA determined that the fabrics set forth in the petition cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On April 7, 2006, CITA and USTR submitted a report to the Congressional Committees that set forth the action proposed, the reasons for such action, and the advice obtained. A period of 60 calendar days since this report was submitted has expired. CITA hereby designates as eligible for preferential treatment under HTSUS subheading 9820.11.27, products in Categories 340, 341, and 350, that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more eligible CBTPA beneficiary countries, from certain 100 percent cotton, 3- or 4-thread twill weave, flannel fabrics, of yarn-dyed, combed, and ring spun single yarns, of the specifications detailed below, classified in HTSUS subheading 5208.43.0000 not formed in the United States. The referenced apparel articles are eligible provided that all other fabrics are wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, subject to the special rules for findings and trimmings, certain interlinings and de minimis fibers and yarns under section 211(b)(2)(A)(vii) of the CBTPA, and that such articles are imported directly into the customs territory of the United States from an eligible CBTPA beneficiary country. Specifications: Fiber Content: 100% Cotton Weight: 98- 150 g/m2 Thread Count: 39 - 66 warp ends per centimeter; 27 - 39 filling picks per centimeter Yarn Number: 84 - 86 average warp and filling, ring spun, combed Weave: 3- or 4-thread twill Finish: Of yarns of different colors; dyed with fiber reactive dyes; plaids, checks and stripes, napped on both sides and pre-shrunk. An “eligible CBTPA beneficiary country” means a country which the President has designated as a CBTPA beneficiary country under section 213(b)(5)(B) of the CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(5)(B)) and which has been the subject of a finding, published in the **Federal Register** , that the country has satisfied the requirements of section 213(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(4)(A)(ii)) and resulting in the enumeration of such country in U.S. note 1 to subchapter XX of Chapter 98 of the HTSUS. Philip J. Martello, Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E6-10032 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0031, Procurement Contracts AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“the Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, and to allow 60 days for comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on requirements relating to information collected to assist the Commission in soliciting and awarding contracts. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Steven A. Grossman, Office of Finance Management, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven A. Grossman,
(202)418-5192; FAX
(202)418-5529; e-mail: *sgrossman@cftc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the Commission is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below. With respect to the following collection of information, the Commission invites comments on: • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use; • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Ways to enhance the quality of, usefulness, and clarify of the information to be collected; and • Ways to eliminate the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through use of appropriate electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Procurement Contracts, OMB Control No. 3038-0031—Extension The information collection consists of procurement activities relating to solicitation, amendments to solicitations, requests for quotations, construction contracts, awards of contracts, performance bonds, and payment information for individuals (vendors) or contracts engaged in providing supplies or services. The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: Estimated Annual Reporting Burden Annual number of respondents Frequency of response Total annual responses Hours per response Total hours 182 Annually 182 2 364 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection. Dated: June 15, 2006. Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 06-5661 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 40
Traces to 40 documents
CFR
14 references not yet in our index
  • 40 CFR 1500
  • Pub. L. 83-566
  • Pub. L. 106-472
  • Pub. L. 89-665
  • Pub. L. 89-523
  • Pub. L. 93-291
  • 50 CFR 216.103
  • Pub. L. 108-453
  • 118 Stat. 3596
  • 37 CFR 1.181-1
  • 37 CFR 1.155
  • 37 CFR 1.47
  • 37 CFR 1.151-1
  • 5 CFR 1320.3(c)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact
C.F.R.§ 351.221
C.F.R.§ 351.222
C.F.R.§ 351.225
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.106
C.F.R.§ 351.305
U.S.C.§ 1361
C.F.R.§ 1.102
C.F.R.§ 1.17
Cite40 CFR 1500
Pub. L.Pub. L. 83-566
Pub. L.Pub. L. 106-472
Cites 54 · 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.