Notices. Notice

11,449 words·~52 min read·/register/2006/07/11/06-6154

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

BILLING CODE 4160-90-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel: Targeted Evaluation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Funded Prevention of Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission (PMTCT), and Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy

(ART)Programs, Contract Solicitation Numbers

(CSN)2006-N-08428, 2006-N-08429, and 2006-N-08430 *Correction:* This notice was published in the **Federal Register** on June 9, 2006, Volume 71, Number 111, page 33456. The location of the meeting was changed due to insufficient meeting space at the Renaissance Concourse Hotel—Marriott, One Hartsfield Center Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30354. The meeting was held at the Hilton Atlanta Airport, 1031 Virginia Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30354. *Titles:* Targeted Evaluation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Funded Prevention of Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission (PMTCT), and Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy

(ART)Programs, Contract Solicitation Numbers

(CSN)2006-N-08428, 2006-N-08429, and 2006-N-08430. *For Further Information Contact:* Amy L. Sandul, Health Scientist, National Center for HIV, STD, and Tuberculosis Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., MS E-41, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone 404-639-6485. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: July 3, 2006. Alvin Hall, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E6-10774 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2005E-0236] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; MULTIHANCE AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)has determined the regulatory review period for MULTIHANCE and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent that claims that human drug product. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive. A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the human drug product becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted, as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B). FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product MULTIHANCE (gadobenate dimeglumine). MULTIHANCE is indicated for intravenous use in magnetic resonance imaging

(MRI)of the central nervous system in adults to visualize lesions with abnormal blood brain barrier or abnormal vascularity of the brain, spine, and associated tissues. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for MULTIHANCE (U.S. Patent No. 4,916,246) from Bracco International B.V., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 8, 2005, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of MULTIHANCE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period. FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for MULTIHANCE is 3,789 days. Of this time, 2,482 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,307 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates: 1. *The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355) became effective* : July 12, 1994. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on July 12, 1994. 2. * The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the act * : April 27, 2001. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug applications

(NDA)for Multihance (NDA 21-357 and NDA 21-358) were initially submitted on April 27, 2001. 3. *The date the applications were approved* : November 23, 2004. FDA has verified the applicant's claims that NDA 21-357 and NDA 21-358 were approved on November 23, 2004. This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 5 years of patent term extension.Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination by September 11, 2006. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by January 8, 2007. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30. Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Dated: June 13, 2006. Jane A. Axelrad, Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. [FR Doc. E6-10796 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Toxicology Program (NTP), Liaison and Scientific Review Office; Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods (SACATM) AGENCY: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), HHS. ACTION: Meeting announcement and request for comment. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a teleconference meeting of the SACATM on August 3, 2006. The teleconference is scheduled from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. and is open to the public. At the teleconference, SACATM will discuss the conclusions of a peer review panel that met on May 23, 2006 to evaluate the validation status of the *in vitro* 3T3 and normal human keratinocyte

(NHK)neutral red uptake

(NRU)basal cytotoxicity test methods (see “Background” for more detail). The public is invited to participate in the teleconference and will be provided with an opportunity to make oral comments during the public comment period. Participation is limited only by the number of phone lines available. DATES: In order to facilitate planning for this meeting, persons wishing to make an oral presentation are asked to notify Dr. Kristina Thayer via phone or e-mail by July 25, 2006, (see ADDRESSES below). Please note that a request for written comments on the peer review report is being announced in a separate **Federal Register** notice (available at *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/frn* ). ADDRESSES: Correspondence should be directed to Dr. Kristina Thayer, Executive Secretary for SACATM (NTP Liaison and Scientific Review Office, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD A3-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone: 919-541-5021, fax: 919-541-0295; or e-mail: *thayer@niehs.nih.gov* ). Persons needing special assistance to participate should contact 919-541-2475 voice, 919-541-4644 TTY (text telephone), through the Federal TTY Relay System at 800-877-8339, or by e-mail to *niehsoeeo@niehs.nih.gov* . Requests should be made at least 7 days in advance of the event. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The National Toxicology Program

(NTP)Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), in collaboration with the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), organized an independent, scientific peer review meeting on May 23, 2006, to evaluate the validation status of the *in vitro* 3T3 and normal human keratinocyte

(NHK)neutral red uptake

(1)a summary of the peer review evaluation and

(2)the peer review panel's conclusions on the draft ICCVAM test method recommendations regarding the proposed usefulness, limitations, and validation status of the 3T3 and NHK cytotoxicity test methods. The availability of the report, entitled *Peer Review Panel Evaluation of the Use of In Vitro Basal Cytotoxicity Test Methods for Estimating Starting Doses for Acute Oral Systemic Toxicity Testing* , and a request for written public comments on the peer review panel's conclusions regarding the draft ICCVAM test method recommendations are announced in a separate **Federal Register** notice (available at *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/frn)* . Copies of the report may be obtained on the ICCVAM/NICEATM Web site at *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov* or by contacting the Dr. Kristina Thayer (see ADDRESSES above). At the teleconference, SACATM will discuss peer review panel's report, focusing on the panel's conclusions regarding the draft ICCVAM recommendations for the proposed use of these test methods, draft test method protocols, draft performance standards, and draft recommended future studies. ICCVAM will consider the peer review report, SACATM comments, and any written public comments received on that report as it prepares final ICCVAM recommendations for the two *in vitro* basal cytotoxicity test methods. An ICCVAM test method evaluation report, which will include the final ICCVAM recommendations, will be forwarded to the appropriate federal agencies for their consideration and made available to the public. Request for Comments Public input at the SACATM teleconference is invited and time is set aside for the presentation of public comments. Each organization is allowed one time slot per public comment period. At least 7 minutes will be allotted to each speaker, and if time permits, may be extended to 10 minutes. Persons registering to make oral comments are asked, if possible, to send a copy of their statement to Dr. Kristina Thayer by July 25, 2006, to enable review by SACATM and NTP staff prior to the meeting. Please not that this teleconference provides an additional opportunity for the public to provide comment on the peer review panel's conclusions regarding the draft ICCVAM test method recommendations. Written comments submitted to NICEATM in response to a NICEATM notice published in this issue of the **Federal Register** do not need to be resubmitted. Any written comments on the peer review report received prior to July 25, 2006, will be distributed to SACATM. Background Information on ICCVAM, NICEATM, and SACATM The SACATM was established January 9, 2002, to fulfill section 3(d) of the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 285 *l* -3(d)] and is composed of scientists from the public and private sectors ( **Federal Register** : March 13, 2002: Vol. 67, No. 49, page 11358). The SACATM provides advice to the Director of the NIEHS, ICCVAM, and NICEATM regarding statutorily mandated duties of ICCVAM and activities of NICEATM. Additional information about SACATM, including the charter, roster, and records of past meetings can be found at *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/167* . Information about NICEATM and ICCVAM activities can be found at the NICEATM/ICCVAM Web site ( *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov* ) or by contacting the Director of NICEATM, Dr. William Stokes (telephone: 919-541-2384, or e-mail: *niceatm@niehs.nih.gov* ). Dated: June 30, 2006. Samuel H. Wilson, Deputy Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program. [FR Doc. E6-10790 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Toxicology Program (NTP), NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM); Availability of Peer Review Panel Report on the Use of In Vitro Basal Cytotoxicity Test Methods for Estimating Starting Doses for Acute Oral Systemic Toxicity Testing and Request for Comments AGENCY: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: The National Toxicology Program

(NHK)neutral red uptake

(NRU)basal cytotoxicity test methods. These two *in vitro* cytotoxicity test methods are proposed as adjuncts (for the purpose of determining the starting dose) to *in vivo* acute oral toxicity tests. The peer review report from this meeting, entitled *Peer Review Panel Evaluation of the Use of In Vitro Basal Cytotoxicity Test Methods for Estimating Starting Doses for Acute Oral Systemic Toxicity Testing* , is now available. The report contains

(1)a summary of the peer review evaluation and

(2)the peer review panel's (Panel) conclusions on the draft ICCVAM test method recommendations regarding the proposed usefulness, limitations, and validation status of the 3T3 and NHK cytotoxicity test methods. The NICEATM invites public comment on the Panel's conclusions on the draft ICCVAM test method recommendations. Copies of the Panel report may be obtained on the ICCVAM/NICEATM Web site at *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov* , or by contacting NICEATM at the address given below. DATES: Written comments should be received at NICEATM by August 25, 2006. ADDRESSES: Public comments and any other correspondence should be sent by mail, fax, or e-mail to Dr. William S. Stokes, NICEATM, NIEHS, P. O. Box 12233, MD EC-17, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, (phone) 919-541-2384,

(fax)919-541-0947, (e-mail) niceatm@niehs.nih.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The 3T3 and NHK cytotoxicity test methods are proposed as adjuncts (for the purpose of determining the starting dose) to *in vivo* acute oral toxicity test methods ( *i.e.* , the Up-and-Down Procedure [EPA 2002a; OECD 2001a], the Acute Toxic Class method [OECD 2001b]) to refine ( *i.e.* , to lessen or avoid pain and distress) and/or reduce animal use. Both *in vitro* cytotoxicity test methods have been assessed in a NICEATM and European Centre on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) collaborative independent validation study. At this peer review meeting, the Panel reviewed the background review document

(BRD)on the 3T3 and NHK cytotoxicity test methods and evaluated the extent that established validation and acceptance criteria had been adequately addressed for the intended purpose of the test methods. The Panel also provided comments on draft ICCVAM recommendations regarding the proposed use of these test methods, draft test method protocols, draft performance standards, and draft recommended future studies. The Panel's conclusions and recommendations on the two *in vitro* cytotoxicity test methods are described in the *Peer Review Panel Evaluation of the Use of In Vitro Basal Cytotoxicity Test Methods for Estimating Starting Doses for Acute Oral Systemic Toxicity Testing* (available at *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/* ). Prior to the Panel meeting, NICEATM issued **Federal Register** notices to

(1)recommend that in vitro basal cytotoxicity test methods be considered as tools for estimating starting doses for in vivo acute systemic toxicity tests (66FR49686),

(2)announce a request for nominations for Panel members and submission of existing in vivo and in vitro data (70FR14473),

(3)announce the independent peer review meeting on the use of the 3T3 and NHK cytotoxicity test methods for estimating starting doses for acute oral systemic toxicity tests, and

(4)request comments on the draft BRD and draft ICCVAM recommendations (71FR14229). All **Federal Register** notices, the draft BRD, and the draft ICCVAM recommendations are available at *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/* . Request for Comments NICEATM invites the submission of written comments on the Panel's conclusions on the draft ICCVAM test method recommendations. When submitting written comments please refer to this **Federal Register** notice and include appropriate contact information (name, affiliation, mailing address, phone, fax, e-mail and sponsoring organization, if applicable). All comments received by the deadline listed above will be placed on the ICCVAM/NICEATM Web site and made available to ICCVAM. In addition, there will be an opportunity for oral public comments on the draft ICCVAM test method recommendations for the 3T3 and NHK cytotoxicity test methods during a teleconference meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods (SACATM) scheduled for August 3, 2006. Details of the SACATM teleconference are published as a separate **Federal Register** notice (available at *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/frn* ). Any written comments on the Panel report received prior to July 25, 2006, will be distributed to SACATM. ICCVAM will consider the Panel report along with SACATM and public comments received on that report as it prepares final ICCVAM recommendations for the 3T3 and NHK cytotoxicity test methods. An ICCVAM test method evaluation report, which will include the final ICCVAM recommendations, will be forwarded to the appropriate federal agencies for their consideration. This report also will be available to the public on the ICCVAM/NICEATM website and by request from NICEATM. Background Information on ICCVAM, NICEATM, and SACATM ICCVAM is an interagency committee composed of representatives from 15 federal regulatory and research agencies that use or generate toxicological information. ICCVAM conducts technical evaluations of new, revised, and alternative methods with regulatory applicability and promotes the scientific validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological test methods that more accurately assess the safety and hazards of chemicals and products and that refine, reduce, or replace animal use. The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 285l-3(d)] establishes ICCVAM as a permanent interagency committee of the NIEHS under NICEATM. NICEATM administers ICCVAM and provides scientific and operational support for ICCVAM-related activities. NICEATM and ICCVAM work collaboratively to evaluate new and improved test methods applicable to the needs of Federal agencies. Additional information about ICCVAM and NICEATM can be found at the ICCVAM-NICEATM Web site ( *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov* ). SACATM was established January 9, 2002, to fulfill section 3(d) of the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 and is composed of scientists from the public and private sectors ( **Federal Register** : March 13, 2002: Vol. 67, No. 49, page 11358). SACATM provides advice to the Director of the NIEHS, ICCVAM, and NICEATM regarding statutorily mandated duties of ICCVAM and activities of NICEATM. Additional information about SACATM, including the charter, roster, and records of past meetings can be found at *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/167* . References EPA. 2002. Health Effects Test Guidelines OPPT 870.1100 Acute Oral Toxicity. EPA 712-C-02-190. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: *http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/* . ICCVAM. 2003. ICCVAM Guidelines for the Nomination and Submission of New, Revised, and Alternative Test Methods. NIH Publication No. 03-4508. Research Triangle Park, NC: NIEHS. Available at: http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov. OECD. 2001a. Guideline for Testing of Chemicals, 425, Acute Oral Toxicity—Up-and-Down Procedure. Paris, France:OECD. Available at: *http://www.oecd.org* . OECD. 2001b. Guideline for Testing of Chemicals, 423, Acute Oral Toxicity—Acute Toxic Class Method. Paris, France:OECD. Available at: *http://www.oecd.org* . Dated: June 30, 2006. Samuel H. Wilson, Deputy Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program. [FR Doc. E6-10789 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Privacy Act of 1974: Systems of Records AGENCY: Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, HUD. ACTION: Notice of new system of records. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act), the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) is issuing public notice of its intent to establish a new Privacy Act system of records. The new system is titled Telecommunications System. The records in this system will be used to verify OFHEO's telecommunications usage and to resolve billing discrepancies. The records may also be used to identify unofficial telecommunications use. The purpose and effect of this system is to facilitate management of telecommunications devices; to analyze use detail information for verifying telecommunication device usage; to determine responsibility for use of telecommunications including placement of specific local and long distance calls; to prevent and detect the misuse of telecommunication resources; and to serve as the basis for appropriate disciplinary action in the event those resources have been misused. DATES: Written comments must be received before August 10, 2006. The proposed new system of records will become effective on August 21, 2006 unless OFHEO receives comments that would result in changes. ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments on the proposed new Privacy Act system of records, identified by “Telecommunications System”, by any of the following methods: • U.S. Mail, United Parcel Post, Federal Express, or Other Mail Service: The mailing address for comments is: Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/System of Records, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. • Hand Delivery/Courier: The hand delivery address is: Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/“Telecommunications System”, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The package should be logged at the Guard Desk, First Floor, on business days between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. • E-mail: *RegComments@OFHEO.gov.* The e-mail address is: *RegComments@OFHEO.gov.* Please include “Telecommunications System” in the subject line of the message. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Alice Donner, Senior Counsel, telephone 202-343-1319 (not a toll-free number); Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The telephone number for the Deaf is

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that OFHEO proposes to establish and maintain a new system of records. This notice satisfies the Privacy Act requirement that an agency publish a system of records notice in the **Federal Register** when there is an addition to the agency's system of records. As required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, and pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records about Individuals,” (February 8, 1996), OFHEO has submitted a report describing the new systems of records covered by this notice to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget. *Comments:* OFHEO seeks public comments on the proposed new system. Comments should include the reference “Telecommunications System” as well as your name and other contact information in the body of your comment. OFHEO further requests that comments submitted in hard copy also be accompanied by the electronic version in Microsoft® Word or in portable document format

(PDF)on 3.5″ disk or CD-ROM. Copies of all comments received will be posted without change on the OFHEO Internet Web site at *http://www.ofheo.gov,* including any personal information provided. Copies of all comments received will be available for examination by the public on business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. To make an appointment to inspect comments, please call the Office of General Counsel at

(202)414-6924. Dated: June 29, 2006. James B. Lockhart III, Director. OFHEO-09 SYSTEM NAME: Telecommunications System. SYSTEM LOCATION: The Telecommunications System is located in the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, 1700 G Street, NW., Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20552, and any alternate work site utilized by employees of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) or individuals assisting such employees. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: The Telecommunications System contains information about individuals, including employees and contractors of OFHEO, who use or are assigned OFHEO telecommunications devices, including telephones, cell phones, wireless devices including wireless hand-held devices, and facsimile machines. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: The Telecommunications System includes records relating to the use of OFHEO telecommunication devices including source, target, duration, and date of telecommunications; records of charges billed to telecommunication devices; records indicating assignment of telecommunication devices to individuals covered by this system and telecommunication device number; and the results of administrative inquiries to determine responsibility for the use or misuse of a telecommunication device or telecommunications resources, including the placement of specific local and long distance calls. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: The system is established and maintained pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 4513(b)(9). PURPOSES: The records in this system are maintained to facilitate management of telecommunication devices; to analyze use detail information for verifying telecommunication device usage; to determine responsibility for use of telecommunications devices including placement of specific local and long distance calls; to prevent and detect the misuse of telecommunication resources; and to serve as the basis for appropriate disciplinary action in the event those resources have been misused. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: In addition to the conditions of disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) and in addition to the general routine uses identified in the Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses, 63 FR 9007 (February 23, 1998), OFHEO staff may provide information in these records:

(1)To a consultant, person, or entity, including a supplier who provides telecommunication services to OFHEO under contract or subcontract, to the extent necessary for the performance of the contract or subcontract, or to investigate or detect possible misuse of the telecommunications device or resources. The recipient of the records shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a).

(2)To OFHEO employees or other persons to determine their individual responsibility for telecommunication device or resource usage.

(3)To the General Services Administration and the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under statutory authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES: Disclosures may be made from this system pursuant to 552a(b)(12) to consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)), and in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e). POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: Records are stored in electronic and paper format. Paper records are maintained in file folders, index cards, rolodex-type files, notebooks, or files. Computer files are maintained on magnetic tape, diskette, or other machine readable format. RETRIEVABILITY: Records are retrievable by name, title, address, device number, or other personal identifier listed under “Categories of Records in the System.” SAFEGUARDS: The system is located in a guarded building that has restricted access. Access to the computer facilities and any paper records is subject to additional physical safeguards that restrict access. Access to any electronic records in the system is restricted by means of passwords and non-transferable identifiers. Back-up magnetic tapes are kept in an off-site storage facility. Records in hard copy are maintained in locked file cabinets. Access is limited to those individuals who have an official need to know. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration General Records Schedule 12. Obsolete paper records are disposed of by shredding or tearing. Obsolete electronic records are deleted, erased or overwritten. SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: Executive Director, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, 1700 G Street, NW., Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20552. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE: The OFHEO regulation for providing access to records appears at 12 CFR part 1702. If additional information or assistance is required, contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, 1700 G Street, NW., Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20552. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: The OFHEO regulation for contesting records procedures appears at 12 CFR part 1702. If additional information or assistance is required, contact the Privacy Act Appeals Officer, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, 1700 G Street, NW., Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20552. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: The information contained in these records is provided by the individual who is the subject of the record, the individual's supervisors or other official OFHEO personnel, OFHEO telecommunication device assignment records, or call detail reports or bills for telecommunications services provided by suppliers of those services. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. [FR Doc. E6-10847 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4220-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces that the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP)and Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)is available for Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The Final CCP/EIS was prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Goals and objectives in the CCP describe how the agency intends to manage the refuge over the next 15 years. DATES: A Record of Decision will be signed by the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, no sooner than 30 days after publication of this notice by the Environmental Protection Agency, in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final CCP/EIS may be viewed at the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Headquarters, its district offices, and public libraries near the refuge. You may access and download a copy via the Planning Web site *http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss,* or you may obtain a copy on compact disk by contacting: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation Planning, Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111 (1-800-247-1247, extension 5429) or Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Room 101, 51 East Forth Street, Winona, Minnesota 55987 (507-452-4232). A limited number of hardcopies for distribution will be available at the Refuge Headquarters. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Hultman,

(507)452-4232. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge encompasses 240,000 acres along 261 miles of Mississippi River floodplain in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. The refuge was established by Congress in 1924 to provide a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds, fish, other wildlife, and plants. The refuge is perhaps the most important corridor of habitat in the central United States due to its species diversity and abundance and is the most visited refuge in the United States with 3.7 million annual visitors. The Draft CCP/EIS was released for public review May 1, 2005, for a 120-day comment period ending August 31, 2005. The Refuge hosted 21 public meetings and workshops attended by 2,900 people. The workshops resulted in 87 workgroup reports with comments or recommendations on major issues. We also received 2,438 written comments including comments from the four states involved, the Corps of Engineers, and 41 conservation or recreation-related organizations, and 6 petitions with more than 3,000 signatures. In response to the high degree of public interest and comment, a Supplement to the Draft CCP/EIS was issued December 5, 2005, for a 60-day comment, which was extended to 90 days, ending March 6, 2006. The Supplement was a new preferred alternative, named Alternative E—Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus, and reflected many changes as a result of public comment. This new preferred alternative, along with the previous four alternatives, is included in the Final CCP/EIS. The refuge hosted nine public meetings on Alternative E attended by approximately 890 persons. We also received 666 written comments on Alternative E from individuals, state and federal agencies, and organizations. These comments, along with those received during the first comment period, are summarized in the Final CCP/EIS, along with a response. Several changes were made to Alternative E for the Final CCP/EIS in response to public and agency comments. These changes include the number, size and location of waterfowl hunting closed areas, electric motor areas, slow no wake areas, hiking trails, and wildlife observation areas; modifications to entry and use regulations pertaining to the above areas; minor modifications to general recreation regulations for camping and other beach-related uses; and changes to strategies and timelines for implementation of step-down plans and other actions. When the Record of Decision is available, we will publish a notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Record of Decision will document which alternative in the Final CCP/EIS will become the 15-year CCP for the Refuge. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee *et seq.* ), requires the Service to develop a CCP for each National Wildlife Refuge. The purpose in developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction for conserving wildlife and their habitats, the CCP identifies wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update these CCPs at least every 15 years in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370d). Dated: May 16, 2006. Charles M. Wooley, Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. [FR Doc. E6-10775 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice of renewal of a current approved information collection. SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (Bureau) proposes to submit the Information Collection Request for the Payment for Appointed Counsel in Involuntary Indian Child Custody Proceedings in State courts to OMB for review and renewal. This information collection is cleared under OMB Control Number 1076-0111 through December 31, 2006. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before September 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send written comments or suggestions directly to Chet Eagleman, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Tribal Services, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240. Facsimile number

(202)208-2648. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chet Eagleman, 202-513-7622. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract A State court that appoints counsel for an indigent Indian parent or Indian custodian in an involuntary Indian child custody proceeding may request reimbursement by sending a written notice to the Bureau of Indian Affairs when appointment of counsel is not authorized by State law. The cognizant Bureau Regional Director uses this information to decide whether to certify that the client in the notice is eligible to have his counsel compensated by the Bureau in accordance with the Indian Child Welfare Act, Public Law 95-608, 92 Stat. 3069. II. Request for Comments The Bureau invites comment on:

(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Our practice is make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will honor your request to the extent allowable by law. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. III. Data *Title of the Collection of Information:* Payment for Appointed Counsel in Involuntary Indian Child Custody Proceedings in State Courts, 25 CFR 23.13. *OMB Control Number:* 1076-0111. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently-approved collection. *Affected Entities:* State courts and individual Indians eligible for payment of attorney fees pursuant to 25 CFR 23.13 in order to obtain a benefit. *Estimated number of respondents:* 4. *Frequency of response:* 1. *Estimate of total annual reporting and record keeping burden that will result from the collection of this information:* 12 hours. *Reporting:* 2 hours per response × 4 respondents = 8 hours. *Recordkeeping:* 1 hour per response × 4 respondents = 4 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 12 hours. *Estimated Annual Costs:* $648.00 (12 hours × $45.00 per hour). *Description of the need for the information and proposed use of the information:* Submission of this information is required in order to receive payment for appointed counsel under 25 CFR 23.13. The information is collected to determine applicant eligibility for services. Dated: July 5, 2006. Michael D. Olsen, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-10786 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-4J-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [ID-420-2824-DD-FM04] Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Eastside Township Fuels and Vegetation Project AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, the BLM has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)to analyze and undertake the Eastside Township Fuels and Vegetation Project, and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period. DATES: Written comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted for 60 days following publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability for this Draft EIS in the **Federal Register** . Future public meetings and any other public involvement activities will be announced at least 15 days in advance through public notices, local media news releases, and/or mailings, and on the BLM Web site ( *http://www.id.blm.gov/offices/cottonwood/index.htm* ). *Addresses/Comments:* Written comments should be sent to Eastside Township Fuels and Vegetation Project Lead, BLM Cottonwood Field Office, 1 Butte Drive, Cottonwood, ID 83522; faxed to

(208)962-3275, or e-mailed to *robbin_boyce@blm.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information and/or to have your name added to our mailing list, contact Robbin Boyce at

(208)962-3594 or e-mail: *robbin_boyce@blm.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The project area is located in north central Idaho, near the southern part of the Idaho Panhandle in Idaho County, near the small, isolated town of Elk City. The Eastside Township Fuels and Vegetation Project (Eastside) project is located in the American River watershed, within the larger upper South Fork Clearwater River watershed. The project area, which encompasses approximately 3,300 acres, borders the town of Elk City and includes the surrounding wildland urban interface

(WUI)areas. Actual BLM-administered lands to be treated total approximately 1,300. This is a landscape level project developed to address the increasing fuel load resulting from the combined effects of long-term fire suppression and an ongoing mountain pine beetle epidemic in the Elk City area. The purpose of this project is to manage the fuels and vegetation conditions in the Elk City WUI area. The project objectives are: • Reduce the risk of high intensity wildland fire to life, property and natural resources in the Elk City area; • Reduce the likelihood of severe local fire effects by removing dead, dying, and downed trees that would otherwise result in high fuel loading; • Manage forest stands to create conditions that will contribute to sustaining long-lived fire tolerant tree species by regenerating to western larch, Douglas-fir, and by retaining most Douglas-fir, western larch, and ponderosa pine; • Create an upward trend in fish habitat condition; and • Contribute to the economic and social well being of area users and local residents. The Eastside project proposes to reduce existing and potential fuel loads through a combination of vegetation manipulation and fuels treatments while supporting a long term upward trend in fish habitat condition. Vegetation manipulation includes removing mainly dead and dying trees and selectively harvesting other trees in both lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands. Fuels treatments include thinning, piling and burning, prescribed burning, and biomass utilization. The DEIS analyzes four alternatives, including a no action alternative and the agency preferred alternative, Alternative B. These alternatives were developed using issues identified during the scoping process. Issues include hazardous fuels, watershed, fisheries, and road/trail access-transportation system. The preferred alternative proposes to treat approximately 1,300 acres requiring approximately 15.1 miles of temporary road construction. Upon completion of the project, including road decommissioning, there would be no net change of road density per square mile in the American River watershed and a decrease of 2.12 miles of permanent road in the project area. The preferred alternative also proposes watershed improvement activities that would provide for an upward trend in aquatic habitat and water quality. These include riparian planting along 4.8 miles of the American River; decommissioning of 1.9 miles of existing road; constructing 0.57 miles of new permanent road along the American River; improving stream crossings (two ford closures, one ford hardening, and two ATV bridge replacements); reconnecting Queen Creek with the American River; converting 1.6 miles of road to ATV trail; and recontouring 1.2 miles of streambank along the American River. The Nez Perce National Forest

(NPNF)is a cooperating agency that has specific expertise or interest in the project. The BLM proposes to use and construct roads on the NPNF. The NPNF may authorize the use and construction of roads based on the analysis in this DEIS. When submitting comments, your full name and address should be included. Comments, including names, street addresses, and other contact information of respondents, will be available for public review. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to request that BLM consider withholding your name, street address and other contact information such as Internet address, fax or phone number from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. The BLM will honor requests for confidentiality on a case-by-case basis to the extent allowed by law. The BLM will make available for public inspection in their entirety all submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses. Copies of the DEIS will be sent to affected Federal, Tribal, State and local government agencies, and to interested publics, and will be available at the BLM Cottonwood Field Office. The supporting record for the analysis for the DEIS is available for inspection at the Cottonwood Field Office during normal business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except holidays). Dated: April 25, 2006. Greg M. Yuncevich, Cottonwood Field Office Manager. [FR Doc. E6-10784 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Minerals Management Service Request for Public Nominations to the Royalty Policy Committee AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Request for nominations. SUMMARY: The Director of the Minerals Management Service

(MMS)is requesting nominations for three public representatives to serve on the Department's Royalty Policy Committee (RPC). These nominations may originate from state and local governments, universities, organizations, or individuals; they may include self-nominations. DATES: Submit nominations on or before July 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit nominations to Gina Dan, Coordinator, Royalty Policy Committee, Minerals Revenue Management, Minerals Management Service, P.O. Box 25165, MS 300B2, Denver, CO 80225-0165. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Dan, Office of the Deputy Associate Director, Minerals Revenue Management, Minerals Management Service,P.O. Box 25165, MS 300B2, Denver, CO 80225-0165, telephone number

(303)231-3392, fax number

(303)231-3194, e-mail *gina.dan@mms.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Nominees should have the expertise in minerals revenue management issues necessary to represent the public interest. The nomination package must include an updated copy of the nominee's resume or biography, including their mailing and e-mail addresses. The MMS is committed to the Department's diversity policy, and nominators are requested to consider diversity when making nominations. Members serve without compensation but will be reimbursed for travel expenses incurred when attending official RPC meetings. Reimbursements will be calculated in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Government service under Section 5703 of Title 5 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). The RPC provides advice related to the performance of discretionary functions under the laws governing the Department's management of Federal and Indian mineral leases and revenues. The RPC reviews and comments on minerals revenue management and other mineral-related policies and provides a forum to convey views representative of mineral lessees, operators, revenue payors, revenue recipients, governmental agencies, and the interested public. The location and dates of future RPC meetings and other information will be published in the **Federal Register** and posted on our Internet Web site at *http://www.mms.gov/mmab/RoyaltyPolicyCommittee/rpc_homepage.htm.* Meetings are open to the public without advanced registration, on a space-available basis. The public may make statements during the meetings, to the extent time permits, and file written statements with the RPC for its consideration. Copies of these written statements should be submitted to Ms. Dan. The RPC meetings are conducted under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 1) and the Office of Management and Budget (Circular No. A-63, revised). All correspondence, records, or information received in response to this notice are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). All information provided will be made public unless the respondent identifies which portions are proprietary. Please highlight the proprietary portions or mark the page(s) that contain proprietary data. Proprietary information is protected by the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1733), FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), the Indian Minerals Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2103) and Department regulations (43 CFR part 2). Dated: June 15, 2006. Shirley M. Conway, Acting Associate Director for Minerals Revenue Management. [FR Doc. E6-10767 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-554] In the Matter of Certain Axle Bearing Assemblies, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting the motion of complainant and respondents to terminate the investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Haldenstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone

(202)205-3041. Copies of the public version of the ALJ's ID and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS-ON-LINE) at *http://edis.usitc.gov* . Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on November 28, 2005, based on a complaint filed pursuant to section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by NTN Corporation of Osaka, Japan (“NTN”). 70 FR 71330 (November 28, 2005). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain axle bearing assemblies, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,620,263. The complaint further alleged that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requested that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order. The Commission named ILJIN Bearing of Gyeongju City, Kyungbuk, Korea and ILJIN USA of Novi, Michigan (collectively, “ILJIN”) as respondents in the investigation. 70 FR at 71331. The ALJ set December 28, 2006 as the target date for completion of the investigation. Order No. 3 (December 5, 2005). On December 21, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID replacing ILJIN Bearing with ILJIN Global as a respondent in the investigation. The Commission determined not to review that ID. 71 FR 3540 (January 23, 2006). On June 12, 2006, complainant and respondents filed a joint motion seeking to terminate the investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement. On June 13, 2006, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion to terminate. On June 14, 2006, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 28) granting the parties' joint motion and terminating the investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement. No petitions for review of the ID were filed. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and Commission rule 210.42, 19 CFR 210.42. By order of the Commission. Issued: July 6, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-10840 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1092 and 1093 (Final)] Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From China and Korea Determination On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury and the establishment of an industry in the United States is not materially retarded, by reason of imports from China and Korea of diamond sawblades and parts thereof, provided for in subheading 8202.39.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). 2 3 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff and Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman dissenting. 3 When packaged together as a set for retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to 8205 of the HTS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported under HTS heading 8206. Background The Commission instituted these investigations effective May 3, 2005, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Diamond Sawblade Manufacturers' Coalition (“DSMC”) and its individual members: Blackhawk Diamond, Inc., Fullerton, CA; 4 Diamond B, Inc., Santa Fe Springs, CA; Diamond Products, Elyria, OH; Dixie Diamond, Lilburn, GA; Hoffman Diamond, Punxsutawney, PA; Hyde Manufacturing, Southbridge, MA; Sanders Saws, Honey Brook, PA; Terra Diamond, Salt Lake City, UT; and Western Saw, Inc., Oxnard, CA. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of diamond sawblades and parts thereof from China and Korea were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the **Federal Register** of January 20, 2006 (71 FR 3324). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2006, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. 4 Blackhawk Diamond ceased operations in January 2006. The Commission transmitted its determination in these investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on July 5, 2006. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3862 (July 2006), entitled *Diamond Products and Parts Thereof from China and Korea: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1092 and 1093 (Final).* By order of the Commission. Issued: July 5, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-10839 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration William G. Hamilton, Jr., M.D.; Revocation of Registration Procedural History On July 23, 2004, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to William G. Hamilton, M.D. (Respondent), which proposed to revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration AH8873588, as a practitioner, *see* 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), and to deny any pending applications for renewal or modification. *See* 21 U.S.C. 823(f). As grounds for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that on March 3, 2004, the Medical Board of California had suspended Respondent's state medical license and that Respondent was without state authorization to handle controlled substances in that state. The Show Cause Order notified Dr. Hamilton that should no request for a hearing be filed within 30 days, his hearing right would be deemed waived. On July 28, 2004, the Show Cause Order was sent by certified mail to Respondent at his home address in San Diego, California. However, the letter went unclaimed. On November 23, 2004, the Show Cause Order was sent via regular mail to Respondent at the same address, and on December 13, 2004, a DEA Diversion Investigator personally served him with the Order. At the time of personal service, Respondent acknowledged that he had received the Show Cause Order that was mailed to him on November 23, 2004. Subsequently, DEA has not received a request for a hearing or any other reply from Respondent or anyone purporting to represent him in this matter. Therefore, finding that:

(1)Thirty days have passed since the delivery of the Order To Show Cause to Respondent; and that

(2)no request for a hearing has been received, I conclude that Respondent has waived his hearing right. *See James E. Thomas, M.D.* , 70 FR 3,564 (2005); *Steven A. Barnes, M.D.* , 69 FR 51,474 (2004); *David W. Linder* , 67 FR 12,579 (2002). After considering material from the investigative file in this matter, this final order is entered without a hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d) & (e), and § 1301.46. Discussion I find that Respondent is currently registered with DEA as a practitioner authorized to handle controlled substances in Schedules III through V under Certificate of Registration AH8873588, with an expiration date of October 31, 2005. Respondent's registration, however, has remained in effect during these proceedings. According to information in the investigative file, on March 3, 2004, a California State Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ)issued an Order, which immediately suspended Respondent's Physician and Surgeon's Certificate. The suspension was based, in part, on the ALJ's finding that Respondent was unable to safely practice medicine due to a mental or physical condition. Since then, I have become aware of further proceedings involving Respondent's state medical license. It has long been recognized that “[a]gencies may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, *Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80*

(1947)(Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e) and 21 CFR 1316.59(e), I hereby take official notice of the fact that on May 12, 2005, the State of California revoked Respondent's medical license. 1 1 In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and DEA's regulations, Respondent is “entitled on timely request, to an opportunity to show to the contrary.” 5 U.S.C. 556(e). *See also* 21 CFR 1316.59(e). DEA's regulations contain no provision for requesting reconsideration of a final order. *See Robert A. Leslie, M.D.* , 60 FR 14004, 14005 (1995). To allow Respondent the opportunity to refute the facts of which I am taking official notice, publication of this final order shall be withheld for a fifteen-day period, which shall begin on the date of service by placing this order in the mail. Respondent has submitted no evidence showing that the State's revocation order has been stayed or vacated. Therefore, I find that Respondent is currently not authorized to practice medicine in the State of California, and that he is also without authorization to handle controlled substances in that state. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to issue or maintain a registration if the applicant or registrant is without state authority to handle controlled substances in the State in which he practices medicine. *See* 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), & 824(a)(3). This prerequisite has been consistently applied. *See Richard J. Clement, M.D.* , 68 FR 12,103 (2003); *Dominick A. Ricci, M.D.* , 58 FR 51,104 (1993); *Bobby Watts, M.D.* , 53 FR 11,919 (1988). Therefore, Respondent is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. Order Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby order that DEA Certificate of Registration, AH8873588, issued to William G. Hamilton, Jr., M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending applications for renewal or modification of the aforementioned registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective August 10, 2006. Dated: June 12, 2006. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-10781 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 05-7] Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D.; Revocation of Registration Introduction and Procedural History On October 12, 2004, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D. The Show Cause Order proposed to revoke Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, BY5532076, as a practitioner, *see* 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), and to deny any pending applications for renewal or modification. *See id.* § 823(f). As grounds for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that on May 21, 2004, the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners had indefinitely suspended Respondent's state medical license. Respondent requested a hearing; the matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Gail Randall. Shortly after the ALJ ordered the parties to file prehearing statements, the Government moved for summary disposition and sought to stay the proceedings while the ALJ considered its motion. As grounds for its motion, the Government asserted that Respondent's state license had been indefinitely suspended and that summary disposition was warranted because no material fact was in dispute. In support of the motion, the Government attached the State Board's order, which summarily suspended Respondent's medical license. The ALJ granted the stay and issued an order, which offered Respondent an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, Respondent filed a response. Respondent asserted that the state had lifted the suspension and reinstated his medical license. In support, Respondent attached an order from the state board proceeding. The order noted that the state had voluntarily dismissed the proceeding and lifted the summary suspension of Respondent's state license. Because Respondent's lack of state authority was the sole basis for this proceeding, the ALJ denied the Government's motion for summary disposition. The ALJ, however, continued the stay and instructed the Government to reply. The Government then moved for reconsideration based upon newly discovered evidence. In the motion, the Government asserted that Respondent's state license had expired on July 31, 2004, and had not been renewed. As support, the Government attached a printout of a Tennessee Department of Health “Licensure Verification” Web page, which indicated that Respondent's license status was “inactive.” ALJ at 3. The attachment, however, contained no explanation as to the meaning of the term “inactive.” Accordingly, the ALJ ordered the parties to provide additional documentation clarifying Respondent's status. Neither party complied with the ALJ's order. The Government sought an extension of time and filed a new motion for reconsideration. In its motion, the Government asserted that it had confirmed that Respondent did not possess a valid state license and that the state authorities had agreed to provide written documentation of this, but had yet to do so. Because the Respondent had also failed to comply with her order, the ALJ concluded that granting an extension would cause no prejudice. The ALJ thus granted the extension and again ordered both parties to submit documentation regarding Respondent's status. Shortly thereafter, the Government renewed its motion for summary disposition and submitted new evidence in the form of a notarized letter from the Tennessee Department of Health. The letter, which is undated, stated that on May 21, 2004, Respondent's medical license had been summarily suspended, that Respondent had failed to renew his medical license before July 31, 2004 (which apparently was its expiration date), that Respondent's license was inactive, and most significantly that Respondent “is not currently authorized to practice medicine in the state of Tennessee.” ALJ at 4 (quoting letter of Rosemarie A. Otto, Executive Director, Tennessee Bd. of Med. Examiners, to James Hambuechen, Office of Chief Counsel, DEA) (emphasis in original). The ALJ waited more than six weeks for Respondent to reply. *See* ALJ at 4. When no reply was forthcoming, the ALJ granted the Government's motion for summary disposition. In so ruling, the ALJ noted the unchallenged evidence that Respondent's state medical license had expired on July 31, 2004, and had not been renewed. *See id.* at 5. Because Respondent lacked authority to handle controlled substances in Tennessee, the ALJ concluded that “DEA does not have authority to maintain the Respondent's DEA Certification of Registration.” *Id.* The ALJ thus granted the Government's motion. The ALJ further recommended that I revoke Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, and deny any pending applications for renewal or modification of the same. The ALJ then transmitted the record to me for final action. Discussion I adopt the ALJ's findings that as of the date of her recommended decision, Respondent was “not currently licensed to practice medicine in the state of Tennessee,” and that “Respondent [was] not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in Tennessee.” ALJ at 5. The letter supporting these findings was undated. I acknowledge that the letter states that Respondent's license had been summarily suspended, that Respondent had failed to renew his license, and that Respondent “is not currently authorized to practice medicine” in Tennessee. The letter does not, however, establish that Respondent's licensure status remains unchanged as of the date of this final order. Therefore, I have decided to take official notice of subsequent state proceedings involving Respondent. *See* 5 U.S.C. 556(e); 21 CFR 1316.59(e). It has long been recognized that “[a]gencies may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, *Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act* 80

(1947)(Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). 1 1 In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and DEA's regulations, Respondent is “entitled on timely request, to an opportunity to show to the contrary.” 5 U.S.C. 556(e). *See also* 21 CFR 1316.59(e). I acknowledge that DEA's regulations contain no provision for requesting reconsideration of a final order. *See Robert A. Leslie, M.D.* , 60 FR 14004, 14005 (1995). To allow Respondent the opportunity to refute the facts of which I am taking official notice, publication of this final order shall be withheld for a fifteen-day period, which shall begin on the date of service. Specifically, I take official notice that following a hearing on September 20-21, 2005, the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners concluded that Respondent had violated multiple provisions of Tennessee law, including Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(12), which prohibits, *inter alia* , “dispensing, prescribing or otherwise distributing any controlled substance or any other drug not in the course of professional practice.” *In re Yeates* , Order at 3 (Tenn. Bd. of Med. Examiners 2005). On October 12, 2005, the State Board thus permanently revoked Respondent's medical license. 2 *Id.* at 4. Subsequent to the State Board's order, DEA has received no information indicating that that the order has been set aside on appeal. Accordingly, I find that Respondent is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Tennessee. 2 Among the findings of the State Board were that “Respondent permitted his patients to return unused prescription medication to his offices,” and that “Respondent instructed his office staff to place any returned prescription medication in a storage chest” for “future use.” *Id.* at 2. The State Board also found that “Respondent and his office staff routinely administered ‘cocktail’ injections to patients without medical justification[,]” and that “[o]n occasion, * * * Respondent and his office staff denied patients their maintenance medication until the patients agreed to receive ‘cocktail’ injections.” *Id.* DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if the registrant is without state authority to handle controlled substances in the state in which he practices. *See* 21 U.S.C. 823(f), 824(a)(3). DEA has consistently applied this rule. *See James Marvin Goodrich, M.D.* , 70 FR 24619 (2005); *Dominick A. Ricci, M.D.* , 58 FR. 51104 (1993); *Bobby Watts, M.D.* , 53 FR. 11919 (1988). Therefore, Respondent is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. Order Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823 and 824, and 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that DEA Certificate of Registration, BY5532076, issued to Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., be, and it hereby is revoked. I further order that any pending applications for renewal or modification of such registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective August 10, 2006. Dated: June 13, 2006. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-10780 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Parole Commission Public Announcement; Pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (Public Law 94-409) (5 U.S.C. 552b) Agency Holding Meeting: Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission. Time and Date: 2 p.m., Friday, July 14, 2006. Place: 5550 Friendship Blvd., Fourth Floor, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Status: Open. Matters To Be Considered: The meeting is being held to discuss the agency's budget for Fiscal Year 2008. Agency Contact: Thomas W. Hutchison, Chief of Staff, United States Parole Commission.

(301)492-5959. Dated: July 6, 2006. Rockne Chickinell, General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission. [FR Doc. 06-6154 Filed 7-7-06; 11:17 am]

Connectionstraces to 27

Traces to 27 documents

U.S. Code