Notices. Notification of a proposal for an exempted fishing permit to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments
19,773 words·~90 min read·
/register/2006/11/14/06-9191A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-10-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-588-804 Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 23, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade affirmed the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) redetermination on remand of the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan. *See NSK Ltd., et al., v.
United States* , Court No. 04-00519, slip op. 06-157 (CIT 2006). This case arises from the Department's final results of *Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in Part, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part* , 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 2004) ( *Final Results* ). The Department is now issuing this notice of court decision not in harmony with the Department's Final Results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0410 or
(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 15, 2004, the Department published the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan for the period May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003. See *Final Results* , 69 FR 55574. Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., and Koyo Corp. of U.S.A. (hereafter “Koyo”) filed a lawsuit challenging the final results. On January 31, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade
(CIT)remanded the Department's determination and ordered the Department to not treat Koyo's positive lump-sum billing adjustments differently than Koyo's negative lump-sum billing adjustments. See *NSK Ltd., et al., v. United States* , 416 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2006) ( *NSK* ). In accordance with the CIT's remand order, the Department filed its remand redetermination on March 31, 2006. On October 23, 2006, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand results. Decision Not in Harmony Although the CIT ruled that our decision in the *Final Results* to treat Koyo's positive lump-sum billing adjustments differently than Koyo's negative lump-sum billing adjustments was not in accordance with law, the CIT affirmed our decision in the remand redetermination to deny all of Koyo's lump-sum billing adjustments. The changes to our calculations with respect to Koyo resulted in a change in the weighted-average margin for ball bearings and parts thereof from 5.56 percent to 5.55 percent for the period of review. Accordingly, absent an appeal or, if appealed, upon a “conclusive” decision by the Court, we will amend our final results of this review to reflect the recalculation of the margin for Koyo. Suspension of Liquidation The United States Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit
(CAFC)has held that the Department must publish notice of a decision of the CIT or the CAFC which is not in harmony with the Department's determination. See * The Timken Company v. United States * , 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Publication of this notice fulfills that obligation. The CAFC also held that, in such a case, the Department must suspend liquidation until there is a “conclusive” decision in the action. *Id.* Therefore, the Department must suspend liquidation pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's October 23, 2006, decision or pending a final decision of the CAFC if that decision is appealed. Because entries of ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan produced by, exported to, or imported into the United States by Koyo are currently being suspended pursuant to the court's injunction order, the Department does not need to order U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of affected entries. The Department will not order the lifting of the suspension of liquidation on entries of ball bearings and parts thereof made during the review period before a court decision in this lawsuit becomes final and conclusive. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: November 6, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19186 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-846) Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 8, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the 2004/2005 administrative and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (PRC). *See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Preliminary Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2004/2005 New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 26736 (May 8, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results/Intent to Rescind* ”). At that time, we invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary results and preliminary notice of intent to rescind the new shipper review. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to our calculations. The final dumping margins for these reviews are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Michael Quigley, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1442 and
(202)482-4047, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The period of review (“POR”) is April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. We published the preliminary results in the 2004/2005 administrative review and preliminary intent to rescind the new shipper review in the **Federal Register** on May 8, 2006. *See Preliminary Results/Intent to Rescind* , 71 FR 26736. On June 19, 2006, we received a case brief on behalf of the petitioner, the Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor After Market Manufacturers (“petitioner”). In addition, we received a case brief on behalf of respondents China National Industrial Machinery Import & Export Corporation (“CNIM”), Qingdao Gren (“Group”) Co. (“Gren”), Shanxi Fengkun Metallurgical Limited Company and Shanxi Fengkun Foundry Limited Company (“Fengkun”), Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Yinghao”), Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Company (“LABEC”), Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Winhere”), Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Haimeng”), Laizhou Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Luqi”), Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co. (“Hongda”), Hongfa Machinery (“Dalian”) Group Co., Ltd. (“Hongfa”), Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. (“Meita”), and Shandong Huanri (“Group”) General Company, Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd., and Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (“Huanri”). Additionally, we received a case brief on behalf of Wecly International, an importer of subject merchandise, on June 19, 2006. On June 22, 2006, we requested that all mandatory respondents in the administrative and new shipper reviews submit consumption data, for the POR, for both bentonite and coal powder. On July 5, 2006, we received responses to our June 22, 2006, questionnaire from Haimeng, Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd. (“Hengtai”), Hongfa, Meita, Winhere and Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (“SZAP”). On July 11, 2006, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and from LABEC, Winhere, Haimeng, Luqi, Hongda, Hongfa, Meita, and Huanri (collectively, the “Trade Pacific respondents”). On July 10, 2006, we issued a request for comments on the Department's proposed methodology to value bentonite and coal powder as direct materials, as well as the consumption data obtained from respondents. On July 17, 2006, the Trade Pacific respondents and the petitioner each filed comments. On July 24, 2006, both the Trade Pacific respondents and the petitioner filed rebuttal comments. In the case and rebuttal briefs received from the parties after the *Preliminary Results/Intent to Rescind* , we received extensive comments on the Department's decision to select respondents via sampling. For further details on these comments, as well as others, and the Department's positions on each, please see the memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China* (November 6, 2006) (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”) and the company-specific analysis memoranda, which are on file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the Department of Commerce building. The *Decision Memorandum* is also available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under “one ton and a half,” and light trucks designated as “one ton and a half.” Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those that have undergone some grinding or turning. These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) that produces vehicles sold in the United States. ( *e.g.* , General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in this order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms). Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). 1 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. 1 As of January 1, 2005, the HTS classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.50.10 to 8708.39.50.30. *See HTSUS (2005)* , available at *www.usitc.gov* . Partial Rescission of Administrative Review We are rescinding the administrative review with respect to Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd.; Xianghe Xumingyuan Auto Parts Co.; National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corporation or China National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corporation, and manufactured by any company other than Shandong Laizhou Capco Industry; Shandong Laizhou Capco Industry, and manufactured by any company other than Shandong Laizhou Capco Industry; Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., and manufactured by any company other than Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co. or Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd.; Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd., and manufactured by any company other than Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., or Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd.; Dixion Brake System (Longkou) Ltd.; and Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. We are rescinding these reviews either because we found no evidence that any of these companies made shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), or these companies consented to a rescission of the administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j). Bona Fide Sale Analysis—SZAP For the reasons stated below, we continue to find that SZAP's reported U.S. sale during the POR does not appear to be a *bona fide* sale, based on the totality of the facts on the record. *See, e.g., Glycine From The People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd.* , 69 FR 47405, 47406 (August 5, 2004). In examining the totality of the circumstances, the Department examines whether the transaction is “commercially reasonable” or “atypical.” *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 68 FR 1439, 1440 (January 10, 2003). Atypical or non-typical in this context means unrepresentative of a normal business practice. *See Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States* , 110 F. Supp. 2d 992, 995 (CIT 2000). The Department considers a number of factors in its *bona fides* analysis, “all of which may speak to the commercial realities surrounding an alleged sale of subject merchandise.” *See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United States* , 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342, (CIT 2005) (“ *New Donghua* ”) (citation omitted). Although some *bona fides* issues may share commonalities across various Department cases, the Department examines the *bona fide* nature of a sale on a case-by-case basis, and the analysis may vary with the facts surrounding each sale. *See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United States* , 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1260 (CIT 2005) (“TTPC”) (citing *Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 20). In *TTPC* , the court affirmed the Department's practice of considering that “any factor which indicates that the sale under consideration is not likely to be typical of those which the producer will make in the future is relevant,” and that “the weight given to each factor investigated will depend on the circumstances surrounding the sale.” *Id* ., 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1250, 1263. In *New Donghua* , the court upheld the Department's practice of “examin{ing} objective, verifiable factors to ensure that a sale is not being made to circumvent an antidumping duty order.” *New Donghua* , 374 F. Supp. 2d at 1339. In examining the *bona fide* nature of SZAP's sale, we find that: 1) the difference in the sales price of SZAP's single POR sale as compared to the prices of its subsequent sales; 2) the quantity of its single POR sale as compared to its subsequent sales; 3) questionable sales documentation pertaining to SZAP's U.S. sale; and finally, 4) other indicia of a non- *bona fide* transaction, all demonstrate that the single sale under review was not *bona fide* . *See* Memorandum to James C. Doyle through Christopher D. Riker from Erin C. Begnal regarding *Bona Fides Analysis and Intent to Rescind New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China for Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd.* (May 1, 2006). Therefore, we find that this sale does not provide a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin. For the reasons mentioned above, the Department continues to find that SZAP's sole U.S. sale during the POR was not a *bona fide* commercial transaction and is rescinding the new shipper review of SZAP. *See Decision Memorandum* , at Comment 10. Separate Rates In our *Preliminary Results* , we found that all respondents except Huanri, Qingdao Rotec Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (“Rotec”), and China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export (Xianjiang) Corporation's exports except for those produced by Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Xianjiang/Other than Zibo”), qualified for separate rates. *Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 26741. On March 8, 2006, Huanri filed a letter with the Department indicating that it wished to cancel the scheduled verification before it began. Huanri acknowledged in this letter that it understood, because of the verification cancellation, that the Department may find that Huanri did not cooperate to the best of its ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Therefore, in the preliminary results, the Department found that Huanri did not demonstrate a *de facto* absence of government control with respect to making its own decisions in key personnel selections, the use of its profits from the proceeds of export sales, and the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements. This is consistent with the Department's practice. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585, 22586 (May 2, 1994). Huanri is therefore not entitled to a separate rate. *See Decision Memorandum* , at Comment 11; see also *Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 26741. Because Rotec and Xianjiang/Other than Zibo failed to respond to the quantity and value questionnaire and did not participate further in this review, we did not have the necessary information to determine their separate rate status. Therefore, we find that Rotec and Xianjiang/Other than Zibo are not eligible to receive separate rates. Because we continue to find that Huanri, Rotec, and Xianjiang/Other than Zibo do not qualify for separate rates, these respondents are deemed to be part of the PRC-wide entity and thus, are subject to the PRC-wide rate. The PRC-wide rate will apply to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from PRC producers/exporters that have their own calculated rate. Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides that, when necessary information is not available on the record, the Department may use the facts otherwise available (“FA”) to reach a determination. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other person:
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority;
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable results under this title. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department shall promptly inform the party submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. Section 782(d) further states that, if the party submits further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to make a determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the administering authority if
(1)the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable results;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the administering authority with respect to the information; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the FA, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the respondent if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See Statement of Administrative Action* (“SAA”) accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session, at 870 (1994). In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient attention to its statutory duties. *See Pacific Giant, Inc. v. United States* , 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1342 (August 6, 2002). The focus of section 776(b) of the Act is on a respondent's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability, rather than just its failure to provide the requested information. *See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final results in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See Section 776(b) of the Act. Hengtai Hengtai withheld and failed to provide information concerning its relationship with SZAP, as well as sales and FOP information for its sales of merchandise produced by SZAP. Moreover, by providing information that was contradicted by evidence discovered at the verification of another company ( *i.e.* , SZAP), Hengtai significantly impeded the Department's ability to calculate a relevant and meaningful margin. Therefore, application of facts available is warranted pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and
(C)of the Act. Additionally, because Hengtai failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by withholding necessary information in its possession in response to the Department's specific questions, the application of adverse facts available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, is also warranted. *See* Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Group 9, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Group 9, from Erin C. Begnal, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Group 9, regarding *2004/2005 Antidumping Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd* . (May 1, 2006). PRC-Wide Entity In the initiation notice, the Department stated that if one of the companies on which we initiated a review does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of brake rotors from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate will be deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC-wide entity of which the named exporter is a part. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 30694 (May 27, 2005). For these final results, Rotec, Xianjiang/Other than Zibo, and Huanri are not eligible to receive separate rates and are thus considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate. As explained above, the PRC-wide entity (including Rotec, Xianjiang/Other than Zibo, and Huanri) did not respond to the Department's requests for information and precluded the Department from verifying information that was submitted. Therefore, we find that the PRC-wide entity withheld requested information from the Department and did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Because the PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in the proceeding, the Department finds it necessary, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (D), and 776(b) of the Act, to use adverse facts available as the basis for these final results of review for the PRC-wide entity. Corroboration In accordance with the Department's practice, we have assigned the rate for the PRC-wide entity to Hengtai as adverse facts available. *See, e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China* , 64 FR 61581 (November 12, 1999), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at comment 1. In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Final Results of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). Consistent with section 776(c) of the Act, this rate is the highest dumping margin from any segment of this proceeding and was established in the less-than-fair-value investigation based on information contained in the petition, and corroborated in the final results of the first administrative review. *See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 61581, 61585 (November 12, 1999). For the reasons stated in the *Preliminary Results* , the Department continues to find this rate to be both reliable and relevant, and, therefore, to have probative value in accordance with the SAA. *See* SAA, at 870; *see also Preliminary Results* . We received no comments on our preliminary analysis of this rate for purposes of these final results. Therefore, we determine that the rate of 43.32 percent is still reliable, relevant, and, has probative value within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Accordingly, for these final results we continue to assign the rate of 43.32 percent to Hengtai and the PRC-wide entity (including Rotec, Xianjiang/Other than Zibo and Huanri) as adverse facts available. Analysis of Comments Received A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the *Decision Memorandum* , accompanies this notice and is attached as Appendix 1. The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on the comments received from the interested parties, the Department has made company-specific changes to the margin calculation for Hongfa. Additionally, based on information submitted since the *Preliminary Results* , some surrogate values have changed. Specifically, we have revised the surrogate values for steel scrap, cartons, bentonite, coal powder and pallet wood. *See Decision Memorandum* at comments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Final Results of Review We determine that the following percentage margins exist on exports of brake rotors from the PRC for the period April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005: Brake Rotors from the PRC Individually Reviewed Exporters 2004/2005 Administrative Review Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. 5.29 Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd. 43.32 Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd. 13.59 Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Company, Ltd. 0.03 ( *de minimis* ) Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 0.01 ( *de minimis* ) “Sample Rate” Exporters 2004/2005 Administrative Review “Sample Rate” Margin (Percent) China National Industrial Machinery Import & Export Corporation 8.90 Laizhou Automobile Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. 8.90 Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. 8.90 Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd. 8.90 Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd. 8.90 Qingdao Gren (Group) Co. 8.90 Shanxi Fengkun Metallurgical Limited Company 8.90 Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co. 8.90 Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company 8.90 Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. 8.90 PRC-Wide Rate Margin (Percent) PRC-Wide Rate 43.32 2 The PRC-wide entity includes Rotec, Xianjiang/Other than Zibo, and Huanri. For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin for each company, see the respective company's *Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China* , November 6, 2006. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and US Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer- or customer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. Where the respondent did not report actual entered value, we calculated individual importer- or customer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, all entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or *de minimis (i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). To determine whether the per-unit duty assessment rates are *de minimis* , we calculated importer- or customer- specific ad valorem ratios based on export prices. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. The following deposit rates shall be required for merchandise subject to the order, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(B) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate for Meita and Winhere will be zero;
(2)the cash deposit rate for Haimeng, Hentai, Honfa, and the “sample rate” exporters will be the rate indicated above;
(3)the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding;
(4)the cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity will continue to be the PRC-wide rate ( *i.e.* , 43.32 percent); and
(5)the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC producer that supplied the exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. These results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 6, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Issues in Decision Memorandum General Issues *Comment 1:* Sampling Methodology A. The Department's Decision to Sample B. Probability-Proportional-to-Size Methodology C. Including Adverse Facts Available in the Sample Rate D. Sampling's Effect on Revocation and Cash Deposit Rates *Comment 2:* Surrogate Value for Labor Rate *Comment 3:* Surrogate Value for Pig Iron *Comment 4:* Surrogate Value for Steel Scrap *Comment 5:* Surrogate Value for Plywood *Comment 6:* Surrogate Value for Cartons *Comment 7:* Bentonite and Carbon Powder as Raw Materials or Overhead Expense Company-Specific Issues *Comment 8:* Hongfa - Pallet Wood *Comment 9:* Haimeng - Valuation of Components Supplied by U.S. Customers *Comment 10:* SZAP - Bona Fides of New Shipper Sale *Comment 11:* Hengtai, Rotec and Xianjiang - Denial of Separate Rates *Comment 12:* Meita - Valuation of Ferro-Manganese *Comment 13:* Cash Deposit Rate for Xianjiang [FR Doc. E6-19187 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-868) Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-4243 or
(202)482-4551, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 21, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 42028 (July 21, 2005). On July 10, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results. *See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 38852 (July 10, 2006). This review covers the period June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005. The final results are currently due by November 7, 2006 . Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Review Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a final determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 120-day period to 180 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period . The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the final results of the administrative review of folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC within the 120-day period due to complex issues the parties have raised regarding the proper treatment of certain U.S. transactions. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the final results of this review to 144 days until December 1, 2006 . This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act . Dated: November 3, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19183 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-890 Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of New Shipper Reviews of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6412. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 6, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture (“WBF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period June 24, 2004, through June 30, 2005, and the following exporters: Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd., Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd, and WBE Industries (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd. *See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2004-2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews and Notice of Final Rescission of One New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 38373 (July 6, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). On September 27, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice extending the time limit for the final results of the new shipper reviews from September 25, 2006, to November 9, 2006. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of New Shipper Reviews of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 56475 (September 27, 2006). Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the Department to issue the final results of a new shipper review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. The Department may, however, extend the time period for completion of the final results of a new shipper review to 150 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). As a result of extraordinarily complicated issues raised in the review segment, specifically the multiple issues raised with regard to the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios based on the financial statements of seven surrogate companies, it is not practicable to complete these new shipper reviews within the current time limit. Accordingly, the Department is fully extending the time period for completion of the final results to 150 days, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(I)(2). Therefore, the final results are now due no later than November 24, 2006. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 6, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19184 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-890 Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Intent to Revoke Order in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 2006. SUMMARY: On September 20, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) received a request on behalf of the petitioners, the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and its individual members (the “AFMC”), for a changed circumstances review and a request to revoke, in part, the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China with respect to cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets. In its September 20, 2006, submission, AFMC stated that it no longer has any interest in seeking antidumping relief from imports of such cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets with respect to the subject merchandise defined in the “Scope of the Order” section below. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230; telephone
(202)482-0414 and
(202)482-3434, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 4, 2005, the Department published the *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* ,(70 FR 329). On September 20, 2006, AFMC requested revocation in part of the AD order pursuant to sections 751(b)(1) and 782(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), with respect to cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets, as described below. Scope of the Order The product covered is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, oriented strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished. The subject merchandise includes the following items:
(1)wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds;
(2)wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds;
(3)night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets;
(4)dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser;
(5)chests-on-chests 1 , highboys 2 , lowboys 3 , chests of drawers 4 , chests 5 , door chests 6 , chiffoniers 7 , hutches 8 , and armoires 9 ;
(6)desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and
(7)other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list. 1 A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy. 2 A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height). 3 A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more than four feet high, normally set on short legs. 4 A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers for storing clothing. 5 A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be designed as a large box incorporating a lid. 6 A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may also include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics. 7 A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached. 8 A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides storage for clothes. 9 An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment systems. The scope of the order excludes the following items:
(1)seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture;
(2)mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames;
(3)office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases;
(4)dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches;
(5)other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems;
(6)bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan;
(7)side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard;
(8)bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate 10 ;
(9)jewelry armories 11 ;
(10)cheval mirrors 12
(11)certain metal parts 13
(12)mirrors that do not attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set. 10 As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by cooling or drying. See Customs' Headquarters' Ruling Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976. 11 Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24'' in width, 18'' in depth, and 49'' in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or felt-like material, at least one side door (whether or not the door is lined with felt or felt-like material), with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset mirror. See Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, Issues and Decision Memorandum Concerning Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China dated August 31, 2004. *See also Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation in Part* , (71 FR 38621) (July 7, 2006). 12 Cheval mirrors, *i.e.* , any framed, tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50'' that is mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base. 13 Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise specifically named in this scope ( *i.e.* , wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.7000. Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) as “wooden...beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other...wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood” and framed glass mirrors may also be entered under subheading 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors...framed.” This order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Intent to Revoke Order in Part At the request of AFMC, and in accordance with sections 751(d)(1) and 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review of the AD order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China to determine whether partial revocation of the order is warranted with respect to cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets. Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have no further interest in the order, in whole or in part. In addition, in the event that the Department determines that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results. In accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(l)(i) and 351.221(c)(3), we are initiating this changed circumstances review and have determined that expedited action is warranted. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(c), we find that the petitioners' affirmative statement of no interest constitutes good cause for the conduct of this review. Additionally, our decision to expedite this review stems from the domestic industry's lack of interest in applying the AD order to the specific wooden bedroom furniture ( *i.e.* , cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets) covered by this request. Based on the petitioners' expression of no interest and absent any objection by any other domestic interested parties, we have preliminarily determined that substantially all of the domestic producers of the like product have no interest in the continued application of the AD order on wooden bedroom furniture as it applies to the merchandise subject to this request. Therefore, we are notifying the public of our intent to revoke, in part, the AD order as it relates to imports of the cheval style mirrored jewelry cabinets from the People's Republic of China. Accordingly, we intend to amend the exclusionary language of the scope on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China to read as follows: Additionally, the scope of the order excludes combination cheval mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, *i.e.* , a framed tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and which constitutes a jewelry cabinet lined with fabric, having necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with or without a working lock and key to secure the contents of the jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere on the integrated piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least 50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth. Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Written comments may be submitted no later than 14 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such comments, may be filed no later than 21 days after the date of publication. The Department will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review, which will include the results of its analysis raised in any such written comments, no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.216(e). If final revocation occurs, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to end the suspension of liquidation for the merchandise covered by the revocation on the effective date of the notice of revocation and to release any cash deposit or bond. *See* 19 CFR 351.222(g)(4). The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated AD duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review. This initiation and preliminary results of review and notice are in accordance with section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 351.221, and 351.222. Dated: November 6, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19185 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 110806A] Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notification of a proposal for an exempted fishing permit to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that the subject exempted fishing permit
(EFP)application submitted by Truex Enterprises contains all the required information and warrants further consideration. This proposed EFP was first published for public comment on June 16, 2006. Due to changes in the EFP proposal from that previously published, the notice and comment period is re-initiated. The proposed EFP would test the safety and efficacy of harvesting surfclams and ocean quahogs from the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog Georges Bank
(GB)Closure Area using a harvesting protocol developed by state and Federal regulatory agencies and endorsed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Assistant Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog regulations and Fishery Management Plan (FMP). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue the EFP. Therefore, NMFS announces that the Assistant Regional Administrator proposes to recommend that an EFP be issued that would allow one commercial fishing vessel to conduct fishing operations that are otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States. The EFP would allow for an exemption from the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog GB Closure Area. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs. DATES: Comments on this document must be received on or before November 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *DA6114B@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Comments on GB PSP Closed Area Exemption.” Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on GB PSP Closed Area Exemption.” Comments may also be sent via facsimile
(fax)to
(978)281-9135. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tobey Curtis, Fishery Management Specialist, phone 978-281-9273. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Truex Enterprises of New Bedford, MA, submitted an application for an EFP on March 30, 2006. Additional information was received on April 19, 2006, completing the application. This proposed EFP was first published in the **Federal Register** on June 19, 2006 (71 FR 35254). On October 2, 2006, the applicant submitted additional information seeking to add states where the product harvested under the EFP could be landed. The experimental fishing application requests authorization to allow the catch and retention for sale of Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs from within the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog GB Closure Area. This area, located east of 69°00 W. long. and south of 42°20 N. lat., was closed on May 25, 1990. This closure was implemented based on advice from the FDA after samples of surfclams from the area tested positive for the toxins (saxotoxins) that cause Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP). These toxins are produced by the algae *Alexandrium fundyense* which can form blooms commonly referred to as red tides. Red tide blooms, also known as harmful algal blooms (HABs), can produce toxins that accumulate in filter-feeding shellfish. Shellfish contaminated with the saxotoxin, if eaten in large enough quantity, can cause illness or death from PSP. Due, in part, to the inability to test and monitor this area for the presence of PSP, this closure was made permanent through Amendment 12 to the FMP in 1999. The primary goal of the study is to test the efficacy of the Protocol for Onboard Screening and Dockside Testing for PSP Toxins in Molluscan Shellfish (Protocol) developed by state and Federal regulatory agencies to test for presence of saxotoxins in shellfish. This protocol would facilitate the harvest of shellfish from waters susceptible to HABs, which produce the saxotoxins, but that are not currently under rigorous water quality monitoring programs by either state or Federal management agencies. The Protocol details procedures and reporting for harvesting, testing, and landing of shellfish harvested from areas that are susceptible to HABs prior to the shellfish from entering commerce. A copy of the Protocol is available from the NMFS Northeast Region website: *http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sfd/clams* . The proposed project would conduct a trial for the sampling protocol in an exemption zone within the larger 1990 GB Closure Area with the F/V Seawatcher. The exemption zone would not include any Northeast multispecies or essential fish habitat year-round closure areas. This proposed exempted fishing activity would occur from approximately December 2006 through March 2007, using surfclam and ocean quahog quota allocated to Truex Enterprises under the Federal individual transferable quota
(ITQ)program. The applicant has estimated a harvest of 176,000 bushels (9,370,240 L) of surfclams and 80,000 bushels (4,259,200 L) of ocean quahogs from the exemption area. The exemption area was tested in cooperation with the FDA in the winter of 2006. No samples collected during that time were above acceptable levels for saxotoxins (80µg toxin/100g of shellfish). In order for the proposed EFP to be issued, the applicant would be required to obtain an endorsement from the state in which it intends to land the product harvested under the EFP. The initial application, submitted on March 30, 2006, only listed Massachusetts as a possible state for landing the product. The revised application includes the initial preferred state of landing, Massachusetts, as well as Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware as possible states where shellfish harvested under the EFP could be landed. Each state would be required to endorse and/or otherwise explicitly permit the F/V Seawatcher to land product harvested under the conditions of the EFP in order for the EFP to be valid, as each state is responsible for regulating the molluscan shellfish industry within its jurisdiction and ensuring the safety of shellfish harvested within or entering its borders. This EFP would allow for an exemption from the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog GB Closure Area specified at 50 CFR 648.73(a)(4). During the comment period for the initial proposed EFP, NMFS received five comments. One comment was against the concept of the EFP in general. Three comments were opposed to the issuance of the EFP until concerns regarding the dockside sampling protocol could be resolved. One comment, from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, was in support of the comments regarding the dockside sampling protocol submitted by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Although adherence to the dockside monitoring protocol would be a condition of the EFP, NMFS is not the author of the protocol, nor the Federal agency responsible for matters of public health, thus NMFS defers response to issues regarding the dockside monitoring protocol to the FDA. However, since the initial public notification of this EFP, the FDA has amended the Protocol in response to concerns raised by state shellfish control authorities. The Protocol and the pilot project that would be authorized by this EFP have also since been endorsed by the executive board of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: November 8, 2006. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-19190 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 110206D] Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Issuance of scientific research permits. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS has issued Permit 1045 Modification 1 to Dr. Michael H. Fawcett (M. Fawcett) in Bodega, CA; and Permit 1046 Modification 2 to the National Park Service
(NPS)in Point Reyes, CA. This notice is relevant to federally endangered Central California Coast coho salmon ( *Oncorhynchus kisutch* ), threatened California Coastal Chinook salmon ( *O. tshawytscha* ), threatened Northern California steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ), and threatened Central California Coast steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ). ADDRESSES: The applications, permits, and related documents are available for review by appointment at: Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 315, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 (ph: 707-575-6097, fax: 707-578-3435, e-mail at: *Jeffrey.Jahn@noaa.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Jahn at 707-575-6097, or e-mail: *Jeffrey.Jahn@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority The issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications:
(1)are applied for in good faith;
(2)would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and
(3)are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations (50 CFR parts 222-226) governing listed fish and wildlife permits. Species Covered in This Notice This notice is relevant to federally endangered Central California Coast coho salmon ( *Oncorhynchus kisutch* ), threatened California Coastal Chinook salmon ( *O. tshawytscha* ), threatened Northern California steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ), and threatened Central California Coast steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ). Permits Issued Permit 1045 Modification 1 was issued to M. Fawcett on October 30, 2006, authorizing capture (by seine), handling, sampling and marking (by collection of fin-clips), and release of juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, California Coastal Chinook salmon, Northern California steelhead, and Central California Coast steelhead. Permit 1045 Modification 1 is for research to be conducted in the Russian River and Salmon Creek watersheds in Sonoma County, California, as well as numerous coastal streams between Gualala River and Estero Americano in Sonoma County, California. Permit 1045 Modification 1 does not authorize take of adult ESA-listed salmonids or intentional lethal take of ESA-listed salmonids. Permit 1045 Modification 1 authorizes unintentional lethal take of juvenile ESA-listed salmonids associated with research activities not to exceed 1 percent of ESA-listed salmonids captured. The purpose of the research is to provide scientific information on the ecology, distribution, population genetics, and population abundance of Central California Coast coho salmon, California Coastal Chinook salmon, Northern California steelhead, and Central California Coast steelhead. Permit 1045 Modification 1 expires on February 28, 2012. Permit 1046 Modification 2 was issued to NPS on October 30, 2006, authorizing capture (by pipe-trap, fyke-net trap, electrofishing, dip-net, or seine), handling, sampling (by collection of fin-clips, scales, or stomach contents), marking (using fin-clips, fin dye, passive integrated transponder
(PIT)tags, or visible implant elastomer
(VIE)tags), and release of juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, California Coastal Chinook salmon, and Central California Coast steelhead; and capture (by weir-trap), handling, marking (using spaghetti-tags), and release of adult Central California Coast coho salmon, California Coastal Chinook salmon, and Central California Coast steelhead. Permit 1046 Modification 2 also authorizes NPS to capture, handle, sample (by collection of scales, fin-clips, or other tissue), mark, and release adult carcasses of Central California Coast coho salmon, California Coastal Chinook salmon, and Central California Coast steelhead. Permit 1046 Modification 2 is for research to be conducted in the following watersheds within or proximate to NPS lands: Olema Creek, Lagunitas Creek, Pine Gulch, Redwood Creek, and Easkoot Creek in Marin County, California; West Union Creek, Martini Creek, San Vicente Creek, and Denniston Creek in San Mateo County, California; and Alhambra Creek and Franklin Creek in Contra Costa County, California. Permit 1046 Modification 2 does not authorize intentional lethal take of ESA-listed salmonids. Permit 1046 Modification 2 authorizes unintentional lethal take of ESA-listed salmonids associated with research activities not to exceed: 5 percent of juvenile ESA-listed salmonids captured, 1 percent of adult Central California Coast coho salmon captured, 2 percent of adult California Coastal Chinook salmon captured, and 2 percent of Central California Coast steelhead captured. The purpose of the research is to support NPS' obligations as a federal agency to identify and promote the conservation of all federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species within park boundaries and their critical habitats. Permit 1046 Modification 2 expires on February 29, 2012. Dated: Novemebr 7, 2006. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-19192 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION [OJP (OJJDP) Docket No. 1463] Meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention AGENCY: Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council) is announcing its November 30 to December 1, 2006 meeting and planning session. DATES: Thursday, November 30, 2006, 9 a.m.-5:30 p.m.; and Friday, December 1, 2006, 9 a.m.-3:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland in the Adele H. Stamp Student Union building, Prince George's Room, located on Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated Federal Official, by telephone at 202-307-9963 [ **Note:** this is not a toll-free telephone number], or by e-mail at *Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, established pursuant to Section 3(2)A of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) will meet to carry out its advisory functions under Section 206 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 5601, *et seq.* Documents such as meeting announcements, agendas, minutes, and interim and final reports will be available on the Council's Web page at *http://www.JuvenileCouncil.gov.* (You may also verify the status of the meeting at that Web address.) Although designated agency representatives may attend, the Council membership is composed of the Attorney General (Chair), the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Vice Chair), the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Nine additional members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United States. Meeting Agenda Two separate sessions will be held. The open session and public meeting will take place on Thursday, November 30, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. The agenda for the public meeting will include:
(a)Discussion of child fatality review teams;
(b)review of past Council planning efforts and results;
(c)legislative, program and agency updates; and
(d)other business and announcements. The planning session, which is closed to the public, will be held on Thursday, November 30, from 11:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on Friday, December 1, from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Registration For security purposes, members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must pre-register online at *http://www.juvenilecouncil.gov/* or by fax to: 301-945-4295 [Daryel Dunston at 240-221-4343 or e-mail, *ddunston@edjassociates.com* for questions], no later than Wednesday, November 22, 2006. [ **Note:** these are not toll-free telephone numbers.] Additional identification documents may be required. Space is limited. Note: Photo identification will be required for admission to the meeting. *Written Comments:* Interested parties may submit written comments by Wednesday, November 22, 2006, to Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated Federal Official for the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, at *Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov.* The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention expects that the public statements presented will not repeat previously submitted statements. Written questions and comments from the public may be invited at this meeting. Dated: November 7, 2006. J. Robert Flores, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. [FR Doc. E6-19134 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Air Education and Training Command Common Battlefield Airman Training Program AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, Air Education and Training Command. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321-4347), the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ)NEPA Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and the United States Air Force's
(USAF)Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP, 32 CFR Part 989), the Air Force is preparing an EIS to consider the proposed action of establishing the CBAT program. This NOI describes the Air Force's proposed alternatives, scoping process, and identifies the Air Force's point of contact. As part of the proposal, the Air Force will analyze potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed development of administrative, instructional, and living areas (referred to as the CBAT Campus) for CBAT students and instructors, as well as utilization of areas for ground training operations. *Purpose:* The purpose of this action is for AETC to establish a CBAT course in order to further expand ground combat skills and give all Airmen a baseline or common skill set. The course would be implemented in three Phases, beginning with Phase I, which would train approximately 1,353 Airmen. Phase II would add 6,365 students, and Phase III provides training for an additional 6,692 Airmen. Full implementation of CBAT would result in training approximately 14,410 Airmen annually in combat small arms firing, basics of land navigation, small unit tactics, and combative skills, along with a daily physical training regimen. The average daily number of personnel that would be present for CBAT at full implementation (to include instructors, base support, and students) would be approximately 2,600. CBAT would be held year-round, with each course lasting 25 days, 10 hours per day, Monday through Friday. Throughout the initial implementation of each phase, personnel, facilities and infrastructure, and field training areas would be added to the selected installation. The end of Phase III would include a total of 166 new buildings at 124,192 square meters added to the installation. Additionally, by Phase III, approximately 9,000 acres (approximately 36.5 square km) of land would be required for CBAT field training in standardized basic small unit tactics, such as how to react to an enemy ambush (which would include the use of blank-fire ammunition and simulated munitions) and practical day and night land navigation training. *Alternatives:* The Air Force used a multi-disciplined team ( *e.g.* , trainers, civil engineers, environmental engineers, and attorneys) to develop criteria for choosing where the CBAT course would be located. Applying the selection criteria in stages narrowed the alternatives first to 64 and later to just 3 Air Force installations located within the Continental United States. Those 3 installations are Arnold Air Force Base
(AFB)in Tennessee, Barksdale AFB in Louisiana, and Moody AFB in Georgia. These three bases and the no action alternative are the alternatives that will be evaluated in the EIS. There is sufficient area on Arnold AFB and Barksdale AFB to support the campus and field training areas. There is insufficient land available to support the field training requirements on Moody AFB, so selection of Moody would necessitate acquiring additional land by purchase or lease. The no action alternative will evaluate current conditions and trends, projected into the future, for comparative purposes. *Scoping:* In order to effectively define the full range of issues to be evaluated in the EIS, the Air Force will determine the scope of the document ( *i.e.* , what will be covered, and in what detail) by soliciting scoping comments from interested state and Federal agencies and the interested public via this **Federal Register** and notices in the local areas of concern. Comments should be forwarded to the address below, by the date indicated. The Air Force will also hold a series of scoping meetings to further solicit input concerning the scope of the proposed action and alternatives. DATES: The scheduled dates, times, locations, and addresses for the scoping meetings are as follows: 1. December 5, 2006—Tuesday, 6-8 pm; Tullahoma, TN; Coffee County Administrative Plaza, Community Room, 1329 MacArthur Street, Manchester, TN. 2. December 7, 2006—Thursday, 6-8 pm; Valdosta, GA; Valdosta City Hall Annex 300 N. Lee St., Valdosta, GA. 3. December 12, 2006—Tuesday, 6-8 pm; Shreveport, LA; Holiday Inn, 2015 Old Minden Road, Bossier City, LA. No additional scoping meetings are scheduled at this time. In addition to comments received at the scoping meetings, any written comments on the scope of the EIS received at the address below by December 16, 2006, will be considered in the preparation of this EIS. All comments received through the scoping process will be evaluated and adjudicated to identify which issues are in fact significant and which ones are not. Issues that are determined to be less important will be addressed in the EIS by a brief discussion of why they were not examined in depth. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Debra Harkiewicz, HQ AETC/A7CVI, 266 F Street West, Bldg 901, Randolph, AFB, TX 78150,
(210)652-3959. Bao-Anh Trinh, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-19143 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-05-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Homeporting Additional Surface Ships at Naval Station Mayport, FL, and To Announce a Public Scoping Meeting AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section (102)(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), the Department of Navy
(Navy)announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of constructing and operating the facilities and infrastructure associated with homeporting additional surface ships at Naval Station (NAVSTA) Mayport, FL. The Navy proposes to review and assess homeporting additional Atlantic Fleet surface ships at NAVSTA Mayport including cruisers, destroyers, frigates, amphibious assault ships, amphibious transport docks, dock landing ships, and/or a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Ultimately the homeporting could involve the relocation of existing ships to NAVSTA Mayport or the assignment of newly acquired ships to NAVSTA Mayport. The proposal includes only those required activities necessary to prepare and operate NAVSTA Mayport for the proposed homeporting and does not include actions at other Navy bases. The EIS study area is NAVSTA Mayport, the Mayport turning basin, the entrance channel, and a portion of the main shipping channel. NAVSTA Mayport covers 3,409 acres and is homeport for 22 ships, five helicopter squadrons, and approximately 16,010 sailors and civilians making it the third largest naval facility in the continental U.S. The scope of actions to be analyzed in this EIS includes homeporting of various classes of surface ships and construction to include dredging, infrastructure and wharf improvements, and construction of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier propulsion plant maintenance facilities (depot-level maintenance facilities including a controlled industrial facility, ship maintenance facility, and maintenance support facility). *Dates and Addresses:* One public scoping meeting will be held in Jacksonville, FL, to receive written comments on environmental concerns that should be addressed in the EIS. The public scoping open house will be held on December 5, 2006, from 4 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Wilson Center of the Florida Community College at Jacksonville, South Campus, 11901 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville, FL. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Will Sloger, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast, 2155 Eagle Drive, North Charleston, SC 29406; telephone 843-820-5797; facsimile 843-820-5848. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the proposed action is to ensure effective support of Fleet operational requirements through efficient use of waterfront and shoreside facilities at NAVSTA Mayport. The EIS will evaluate the environmental effects associated with: Water resources; air quality; biological resources, including threatened and endangered species; land use; socioeconomic resources; infrastructure; and cultural resources. The analysis will include an evaluation of direct and indirect impacts, and will account for cumulative impacts from other relevant activities in the Mayport area. The Navy will analyze alternatives that include cruisers, destroyers, frigates, amphibious assault ships, amphibious transport docks, dock landing ships, and/or a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. No decision will be made to implement any alternative until the EIS process is completed and a Record of Decision is signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment). The Navy is initiating the scoping process to identify community concerns and local issues to be addressed in the EIS. Federal agencies, State agencies, local agencies, and interested persons are encouraged to provide written comments to the Navy to identify specific issues or topics of environmental concern that should be addressed in the EIS. Written comments must be postmarked by December 29, 2006 and should be mailed to: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast, 2155 Eagle Drive, North Charleston, SC 29406, Attn: Code EV21 (Mr. Will Sloger), telephone 843-820-5797, facsimile 843-820-5848. Dated: November 1, 2006. M.A. Harvison, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-19163 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Availability of Invention for Licensing; Government-Owned Invention AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are available for licensing by the Department of the Navy. Navy Case No. 83,562: Making it Possible to Use a Human Similarity Measure in a Face Recognition System.//Navy Case No. 83,817: Fiber FTIR in the Mid-Wave-IR and Long-Wave-IR Spectral Region.//Navy Case No. 84,353: Ultrathin, Conformal Polymer Coatings as Separators at Nanostructured Metal Oxides Used for Energy Storage.//Navy Case No. 84,425: Smoke Detector System Alarm Activation Via 85 Decibel Acoustic Horn from any Detector Location.//Navy Case No. 84,558: Method and Apparatus for Passive Acoustic Ranging in Shallow Water.//Navy Case No. 84,812: Tri-Axial Hybrid Vibration Isolator.//Navy Case No. 84,925: Carbon Nanoarchitectures with Ultrathin, Conformal Polymer Coatings for Electrochemical Capacitors.//Navy Case No. 95,807: CMOS Analog-to-Digital Converter with Arbel Channel.//Navy Case No. 95,924: Detector of Slow-Moving Targets in High-Resolution Sea.//Navy Case No. 95,959: Hybrid Cat's Eye Modulating Retro-Reflector with Coarse Pointing Element.//Navy Case No. 95,978: 3-D SAR Sub-Pixel Resolution.//Navy Case No. 95,988: TiO2 Aerogel-Based Photoboltaic Electrodes and Solar Cells.//Navy Case No. 96,014: Controller for Event-Based Statistical Covert Channels.//Navy Case No. 96,139: CNT-Based Nanocomposite for Hydrogen Storage and Fuel Cell Applications.//Navy Case No. 96,148: Gas Filled Hollow Core Chalcogenide Photonic Bandgap Fiber Raman Device and Method.//Navy Case No. 96,182: All Electronic Isolator Using Negative Refractive Fixed Heterostructure Bi-Crystal or Ferroelectric Heterostructure Bi-Crystal or Ferroelectric Heterostructure Bi-Crystal.//Navy Case No. 96,194: IR Supercontinuum Source.//Navy Case No. 96,231: Doppler-Sensitive Adaptive Coherence Estimate Detector.//Navy Case No. 96,301: Scale Adaptive Filtering.//Navy Case No. 96,318: Wafer Bonded High Voltage Power Switch.//Navy Case No. 96,353: Dual Large Area Plasma Processing System.//Navy Case No. 96,365: One-Dimensional Iris Signature for Iris Identification.//Navy Case No. 96,406: Laser Filament Imager.//Navy Case No. 96,499: Thermally Reflective Encapsulated Phase Change Pigment.//Navy Case No. 96,578: Method of Fabrication MgB2 Superconductors by Hot Rolling.//Navy Case No. 96,583: Secure Agent Software Development System.//Navy Case No. 96,585: Magnetically Directed Self-Assembly of Molecular Electronic Junctions.//Navy Case No. 96,612: Silicon Nitride Passivation with Ammonia Plasma Pretreatment for Improving Reliability of A1GaN/GaN HEMTs.//Navy Case No. 96,613: A Conducting Polymer Switch for Proteins—Control of Protein Activity Using Doped and Dedoped States of Highly Conducting Hydroxylated Poly (3,4 Ethylenedioxythiophene).//Navy Case No. 96,628: Method of Controlling Quantum Dot Photoluminescence and Other Intrinsic Properties Through Biological Specificity.//Navy Case No. 96,629: Multistatic Radar Adaptive Pulse Compressor.//Navy Case No. 96,691: Method and Apparatus for Generating Power from Voltage Gradients at Sediment-Water Interfaces Using Active Transport of Sediment Porewater.//Navy Case No. 96,695: Pattern Assessment Methodology Using Spatial Analysis.//Navy Case No. 96,740: Metal Vapor Vacuum Arc (MeVVa) Eight-Element Pulsed Ion Source.//Navy Case No. 96,769: Securerun, an XML Based Scripting Framework For Interactive, Semi-Automated, Automated, and Distributed Applications.//Navy Case No. 96,775: Magnesium Aluminate Transparent Ceramic Having Low Scattering and Absorption Loss.//Navy Case No. 96,776: Optical Fiber Clad-Protective Terminations.//Navy Case No. 96,826: Novel Biodegradable Biofouling Control Coating and Method of Formulator.//Navy Case No. 96,834: Impact Tensile Test Machine.//Navy Case No. 96,837: Low Loss VIS-IR (0.5-5.0um) Transmitting Ceramic Alon—Glass Composite Windows and Domes.//Navy Case No. 96,839: Low Loss VIS-IR (0.5-5.0 um) Transmitting Glass—Ceramic Spinel Composite Windows and Domes.//Navy Case No. 96,866: Composition and Method for Making a Solvent Free, Self Polishing Poly-Urethane Matrix for Use in Solvent Free Antifoulings with Much Enhanced Mechanical Properties and Expected Life Term.//Navy Case No. 96,921: LiF Coated Magnesium Aluminate.//Navy Case No. 96,928: Narrow Band Notch Filter with Multiple Signal Path.//Navy Case No. 96,943: Optical Interrogation of Micro-Mechanical Sensors Using Microcavity Interferometry.//Navy Case No. 97,019: Electrospray Coating of Aerosols On-the-Fly for Fluorescent Labeling and Identification.//Navy Case No. 97,081: Poly-En-Urea, A Novel Solvent Free Weatherable Coating.//Navy Case No. 97,123: Reaction of Inorganic-Organic Linear Hybrid with Metal Salts and Metal Complexes Producing the Metallic Adduct of the Acetylenic Unit and Thermoset Formation Thereof.//Navy Case No. 97,124: Ceramic Compositions Formulated from Thermal Conversion of Thermosets Produced from Inorganic-Organic Linear Hybrid with Metal Salts and Metal Complexes of the Acetylenic Units.//Navy Case No. 97,197: Microarray-Based Detection and Molecular Characterization of Human Pathogenic Vibrio SPP.//Navy Case No. 97,200: Composite Battery Electrodes for High Rate Applications and Rapid Recharging.//Navy Case No. 97,294: Method of Transferring a Ultra-Thin Layer of Crystalline Material with High Crystalline Quality (#1).//Navy Case No. 97,295: Method of Transferring a Ultra-Thin Layer of Crystalline Material with High Crystalline Quality (#2).//Navy Case No. 97,316: A General Method for Stacking Thermal Actuators.//Navy Case No. 97,318: Non-Conductive Magnetic and Semiconductor Tunable Composite Negative Refractive Index Composite.//Navy Case No. 97,333: Radar Pulse Repetition Interval
(PRI)Tracking Algorithm, or Radar Radio Frequency
(RF)Tracking Algorithm.//Navy Case No. 97,413: Multi-Channel Carrier Suppression and Extraction Technique.//Navy Case No. 97,444: Volume Sensor: Data Fusion-Based, Multi-Sensor System for Advanced Damage Control.//Navy Case No. 97,454: Interferometer Based Chromatic Dispersion Monitor.//Navy Case No. 97,461: Novel Biodegradable Biofouling Control Coating and Method of Formulator.//Navy Case No. 97,486: Processing Semantic Markups in Web Ontology Language
(OWL)with an Universal Description, Discovery and Integration
(UDDI)Registry.//Navy Case No. 97,493: A Novel Method for the Bottom-Seeded Growth of Potassium Lead Chloride Crystals from Polycrystalline Seeds.//Navy Case No. 97,494: Compression Assembly of Spatial Heterodyne Spectrometer (SHS).//Navy Case No. 97,497: Thioacetate De-protection Method Using Catalytic Quaternary Ammonia Cyanide in Combination with a Protic Solvent.//Navy Case No. 97,498: Incorporation of 18 Oxygen into Peptide Mixtures for Differential Protein Expression Analysis by Mass Spectrometry.//Navy Case No. 97,499: Fiber Microstructure for Coupling a Plurality of Single Mode Fibers Onto One or More, High Bandwidth Photo-Detector(s) for Communications, Sensor, or Signal Processing Applications.//Navy Case No. 97,522: Long Range Active Thermal Imaging Using a Microwave or Millimeter-Wave Beam.//Navy Case No. 97,527: Controlled Actuated Membranes and Method of Making Same.//Navy Case No. 97,581: System and Method for Estimating Ocean Height and Current on a Personal Computer with Hurricane Module.//Navy Case No. 97,613: Passaged Neural Stem Cell-Derived Neuronal Networks as Sensing Elements for Detection of Environmental Threats.//Navy Case No. 97,614: Weighted, Summing Photonic Digital-to-Analog Conversion.//Navy Case No. 97,625: Thermoset Material Made From Siloxane-Acetylene Polymer Containing Metal-Acetylene.//Navy Case No. 97,661: Method and Apparatus for Three Dimensional Blending (TDB).//Navy Case No. 97,662: Integrally Gated Carbon Nanotube Field Ionizer Device and Method of Manufacture Therfor.//Navy Case No. 97,693: Technique for Detecting Damage-Induced Nonlinearities in Structures in the Absence of Baseline Data.//Navy Case No. 97,698: A Method and Apparatus for Attaching a Fluid Cell to a Planar Substrate.//Navy Case No. 97,705: Tri-Axial Hybrid Vibration Isolator.//Navy Case No. 97,713: Coating of Polymeric Fibers with Inorganic-Organic Hybrid Polymers for Environmental and Oxidative Protection.//Navy Case NO. 97,717: Remote Laser Assisted Biological Aerosol Standoff Detection in Atmosphere.//Navy Case No. 97,718: Multi-Core Optical Fiber Design for Distributed Sensing of Twist and Bend by Internal Strain Measurements.//Navy Case No. 97,725: Technique for Transformation of Universal Transverse Mercator Projected Raster Images into a Geodetic Projection.//Navy Case No. 97,727: System and Method for Analysis of Partial Iris Recognition.//Navy Case No. 97,738: Mosaic, Suppression of Edge Delamination Through Meso-Scale Structuring.//Navy Case No. 97,740: Advance Metoc Broker.//Navy Case No. 97,741: Iris Pattern Extraction Using Bit Planes and Standard Deviations.//Navy Case No. 97,745: Algorithm and System for Retrieving Ionospheric Parameters from Disk-Viewing Ultraviolet Airglow Data.//Navy Case No. 97,789: Crystalline III-V Nitride Films on Refractory Metal Substrates for High-Power Device Application.//Navy Case No. 97,792: Vacuum Wave Maker System.//Navy Case No. 97,793: Tactical Pocket Knife with Prying Protrusion, Boot-Shaped Lock, and Rotating Clip.//Navy Case No. 97,886: Adding Semantic Support to Existing UDDI Infrastructure.//Navy Case No. 97,893: Use of SiGe HBT to Moderate Light Through its Carrier Plasma.//Navy Case No. 97,911: Self Decontaminating Surfaces.//Navy Case No. 97,922: SOFC Cathode Containing Lanthanum Nickelate (La2Ni04+d).//Navy Case No. 97,925: Advanced Metoc Broker.//Navy Case No. 97,949: Feature Selection and Pattern Recognition Methods for Toxic Industrial Chemical and Fire Detection Using Cermet Sensors.//Navy Case No. 98,043: Secure Middleware.//Navy Case No. 98,052: Trifluoromethylcarbinol Terminated Alkanethiols.//Navy Case No. 98,059: A Configuration that Combines a Contra-Rotating Pair of Single-Blade Wing/Rotors and a Tilting Canard Wing/Propeller Unit into a Stop-Rotor Converting Rotor-Wings/Fixed-Wings Hybrid Micro-Air Vehicle with Full 3-Axis Control in all Modes of Flight.//Navy Case No. 98,063: Active-Twist Airfoil System.//Navy Case No. 98,070: IR Fiber Parametric Amplifier and Source.//Navy Case No. 98,071: Poled IR Fiber Parametric Amplifier and Source.//Navy Case No. 98,079: Functional Polymers Via Surface Modifying Agents, and Method for Polymeric Surface Modification.//Navy Case No. 98,082: Automated Discovery, Binding, and Integration of Non-Registered Geospatial Web Services.//Navy Case No. 98,094: Novel, Single Domain Antibody Libraries to Provide Heat Stable, High Affinity, Recombinant Recognition Elements.//Navy Case No. 98,095: Multi-Sensor Display System.//Navy Case No. 98,096: Manual FACS Coding Tool.//Navy Case No. 98,117: Polymerizable Sulfonate Ionic Liquids and Liquid Polymers Therefrom.//Navy Case No. 98,168: Infrared Transfer of Functionalized Nanoparticles.//Navy Case No. 98,185: Materials and Structures Thereof Useful as Electrocatalysts.//Navy Case No. 98,212: Applications of the Binding Interaction of Proanthocyanidins with Bacteria and Bacterial Components.//Navy Case No. 98,214: Calibrated Impact Hammer.//Navy Case No. 98,254: Optically Clear Monolith with Embedded Molecularly Imprinted Periodic Mesoporous Organosilicas
(PMOs)as Selective Sorbents, Pre-Concentrators, and/or as Recognition Elements for Optical Sensors.//Navy Case No. 98,258: Self Calibration Devices for Chemical and Bio Analyte Trace Detectors.//Navy Case No. 98,286: An Ensemble Approach to Robust Classifier Fusion.//Navy Case No. 98,287: Electroless Deposition of Nanoscale Manganese Oxide on Ultraporous Carbon Nanoarchitectures for Electrochemical Capacitor Applications.//Navy Case No. 98,288: Graphical Representation of Facial Movements, Body Movements and Speech Over Time.//Navy Case No. 98,316: Mobile Self-Spreading Biocides.//Navy Case No. 98,325: Design and Selection of Genetic Targets for Sequence Resolved Organism and Identification.//Navy Case No. 98,346: Method of Making a Nanostructured Electrode.//Navy Case No. 98,347: Catalyst Nanoparticle.//Navy Case No. 98,387: Secure Digital Communications Using Chaotic Signals: An Attractor-Based Approach.//Navy Case No. 98,404: High Performance Chirped Electrode Design for Cat's Eye Retro-Reflector Modulators and any continuations, continuations-in-part divisionals or re-issues thereof. ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the inventions cited should be directed to the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, and must include the Navy Case number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone
(202)767-7230. Due to temporary U.S. Postal Service delays, please fax
(202)404-7920, e-mail: *techtran@utopia.nrl.navy.mil* or use courier delivery to expedite response. (Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404) Dated: November 7, 2006. M.A. Harvison, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-19155 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the Board of Visitors of Marine Corps University AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Board of Visitors of the Marine Corps University (BOV MCU) will meet to review, develop, and provide recommendations on all aspects of the academic and administrative policies of the University; examine all aspects of professional military education operations; and provide such oversight and advice, as is necessary, to facilitate high educational standards and cost-effective operations. The Board will be focusing primarily on the University's Expeditionary Warfare School. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public. DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 29, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and on Thursday, November 30, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Expeditionary Warfare School Director's Conference Room. The address is: Expeditionary Warfare School, 2077 Geiger Road, Quantico, Virginia 22134. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Lanzillotta, Executive Secretary, Marine Corps University Board of Visitors, 2076 South Street, Quantico, Virginia 22134, telephone number 703-784-4037. Dated: October 19, 2006. M.A. Harvison, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-19141 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Overview Information; Teacher Incentive Fund; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2006 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.374A. DATES: *Applications Available:* November 14, 2006. *Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply:* December 29, 2006. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* February 12, 2007. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* April 13, 2007. *Eligible Applicants:* Local educational agencies (LEAs), including charter schools that are LEAs in their State; State educational agencies (SEAs); or partnerships of
(a)an LEA, an SEA, or both, and
(b)at least one non-profit organization. *Estimated Available Funds:* $43,000,000. Contingent upon the availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of high-quality applications, we may make additional awards, using FY 2007 funds, from the rank-ordered list of unfunded applications from this competition. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $100,000—$10,000,000. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $3,500,000. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 10—20. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 60 months. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Description of Program:* This competition is a reopening of a competition run by the Department of Education for FY 2006 Teacher Incentive Program funds. Sixteen awards were made on November 1, 2006. At that time, applicants who were not awarded funding were notified. We encourage applicants who applied previously for this competition and did not receive funding to revise their applications and to reapply. All other eligible applicants are also encouraged to apply. *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the Teacher Incentive Fund, authorized as part of the FY 2006 Department of Education Appropriations Act, Public Law 109-149, is to support programs that develop and implement performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems in high-need schools. The specific goals of the Teacher Incentive Fund include: Improving student achievement by increasing teacher and principal effectiveness; reforming teacher and principal compensation systems so that teachers and principals are rewarded for increases in student achievement; increasing the number of effective teachers teaching poor, minority, and disadvantaged students in hard-to-staff subjects; and creating sustainable performance-based compensation systems. *Priorities:* We are establishing these priorities for the FY 2006 grant competition (including any awards we make, using FY 2007 funds, from the list of unfunded applications from this competition), in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act. *Absolute Priority:* For the FY 2006 grant competition (including any awards we may make, using FY 2007 funds, from the list of unfunded applications from this competition), this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority. Consistent with the program purpose, the grantee must establish a system that provides teachers and principals, or principals only, serving in high-need schools with differentiated levels of compensation based primarily on student achievement gains at the school and classroom levels. This performance-based compensation system must also
(a)consider classroom evaluations conducted multiple times during each school year and
(b)provide educators with incentives to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles. *Competitive Preference Priorities:* For the FY 2006 grant competition (including any awards we make, using FY 2007 funds, from the list of unfunded applications from this competition), these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award up to an additional 5 points to an application, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority. These priorities are: *Competitive Preference Priority 1:* We will award up to an additional 5 points depending on the extent to which the applicant documents or provides a plan to establish ongoing support for and commitment to the performance-based compensation system from a significant proportion of the teachers, the principal, and the community, including the applicable governing authority or LEA, for each participating high-need school. *Competitive Preference Priority 2:* We will award up to an additional 5 points depending on the extent to which the applicant will provide differentiated levels of compensation, which may include incentives, to recruit or retain effective teachers and principals (as measured by student achievement gains) in high-need urban and rural schools, and/or in hard-to-staff subject areas such as mathematics and science. *Definitions:* The following definitions apply: A high-need school means a school with more than 30 percent of its enrollment from low-income families, based on eligibility for free and reduced price lunch subsidies or other poverty measures that the State permits the LEAs to use. A middle or high school may be determined to meet this definition on the basis of poverty data from feeder elementary schools. *Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:* Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, definitions, cost-sharing requirements, selection criteria, and performance measures. Section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1)), however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for this program authorized as part of the FY 2006 Department of Education Appropriations Act, Public Law 109-149, and therefore these rules qualify for this exemption. To ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided, under section 437(d)(1), to forego public comment on the priorities, definitions, cost-sharing requirements, selection criteria, and performance measures. These priorities, definitions, cost-sharing requirements, selection criteria, and performance measures will apply to the FY 2006 grant competition (including any awards we make, using FY 2007 funds, from the list of unfunded applications from this competition). Program Authority: Pub. L. No. 109-149, 119 Stat. 2864-65. *Applicable Regulations:* The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 97, 98, and 99. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grant. *Estimated Available Funds:* $43,000,000. Contingent upon the availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of high-quality applications, we may make additional awards, using FY 2007 funds, from the rank-ordered list of unfunded applications from this competition. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $100,000-$10,000,000. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $3,500,000. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 10-20. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 60 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* LEAs, including charter schools that are LEAs in their State; SEAs; or partnerships of
(a)an LEA, an SEA, or both, and
(b)at least one non-profit organization. 2. *Cost-Sharing:* The grantee must ensure that, in each applicable budget year, an increasing share of funds from sources other than this grant will be used to pay for earned differential compensation costs as they are phased in during the performance period. In the final year of the performance period, the grantee must ensure that at least 75 percent of the differentiated compensation costs are not paid from this grant. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone (toll free): 1-877-433-7827. Fax:
(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call (toll free): 1-877-576-7734. You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site: *http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or you may contact ED Pubs at its e-mail address: *edpubs@inet.ed.gov.* If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.374A. Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting one of the individuals listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII. of this notice. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. *Notice of Intent to Apply:* We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we have a better understanding of the number of entities that intend to apply for funding. Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to send a notification of its intent to apply for funding to the following e-mail address: *TIF@ed.gov.* The notification of intent to apply for funding is optional and should not include information regarding the proposed application. *Page Limit:* Applicants are strongly encouraged to limit their application to 40 pages. 3. * Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* November 14, 2006. *Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply:* December 29, 2006. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* February 12, 2007. Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically or by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the application requirements. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* April 13, 2007. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications.* Applications for grants under this competition-CFDA Number 84.374A must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site at: *http://www.grants.gov.* Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.* You may access the electronic grant application for the TIF program at: *http://www.grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search. *Please note the following:* • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are time and date stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted, and must be date/time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date/time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date/time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all of the steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.Grants.gov/GetStarted* ). These steps include
(1)registering your organization,
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR), and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/assets/GrantsgovCoBrandBrochure8X11.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to successfully submit an application via Grants.gov. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format. • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information typically included on the Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified above or submit a password protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you a second confirmation by e-mail that will include a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues With the Grants.gov System:* If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically, or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions as described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the deadline date, please contact the person listed elsewhere in this notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number (if available). We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: Extensions referred to in this section apply only to the unavailability of or technical problems with the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement:* You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because— • You do not have access to the Internet; or • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail or fax your statement to: April Lee, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W229, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Fax:
(202)205-4921. Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.374A), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center—Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.374A), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark,
(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service,
(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier, or
(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1)A private metered postmark, or
(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.374A), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays. *Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:* If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department:
(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 4 of the Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424) the CFDA number—and suffix letter, if any—of the competition under which you are submitting your application.
(2)The Application Control Center will mail a grant application receipt acknowledgment to you. If you do not receive the grant application receipt acknowledgment within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at
(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this competition are as follows:
(a)*Need* (5 points). The extent to which the applicant describes the scope and size of the project and the need for the project, including information on student academic achievement and the quality of the teachers and principals in the LEA(s) and high-need schools that will be served by the project.
(b)*Project Design* (50 points).
(1)The extent to which the performance-based compensation system will reward teachers and principals who raise student academic achievement.
(2)The extent to which the applicant describes the performance-based teacher and principal compensation system that the applicant proposes to develop, implement, or expand, including the extent to which the applicant will build the capacity of teachers and principals through activities such as professional development to raise student achievement and to provide students with greater access to rigorous coursework.
(3)The extent to which the applicant's proposed project includes valid and reliable measures of student achievement—including statewide assessment scores as appropriate for this purpose—as the primary indicator of teacher and principal effectiveness in the proposed performance-based compensation system.
(4)The extent to which the applicant proposes to develop and implement a fair, rigorous and objective process to evaluate teacher and principal performance multiple times throughout the school year.
(c)*Adequacy of Resources* (20 points).
(1)The extent to which the applicant provides a thorough explanation of how the applicant will use funds awarded under the grant together with the required matching funds to carry out the program purpose.
(2)The extent to which the applicant provides a detailed plan, including documentation of resources, for sustaining its performance-based compensation system after the grant period ends.
(3)The extent to which the applicant includes a thorough description of its current data-management capacity and proposed areas of data management development in order to implement a performance-based compensation system in which differentiated compensation is based primarily on student academic achievement.
(d)*Quality of the Management Plan and Key Personnel* (15 points).
(1)The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, milestones, and processes for continuous improvement to accomplish project tasks.
(2)The qualifications, including experience, education, and training of proposed key personnel.
(e)*Evaluation* (10 points).
(1)The extent to which the applicant's evaluation plan includes the use of objective measures that are clearly related to the goals of the project to raise student achievement and increase teacher effectiveness, including the extent to which the evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data.
(2)The extent to which the applicant includes adequate evaluation procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(3)The extent to which the applicant commits to participating in a rigorous national evaluation that will provide a common design methodology, data collection instruments, and performance measures for all grantees funded under this competition. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may also notify you informally. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section of this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of the project period, recipients must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as specified by the Secretary in 34 CFR 75.118. 4. *Performance Measures:* Pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Department has established the following performance measures that it will use to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the grantee's project, as well as the TIF program as a whole:
(1)Changes in LEA personnel deployment practices, as measured by changes over time in the percentage of teachers and principals in high-need schools who have a record of effectiveness; and
(2)Changes in teacher and principal compensation systems in participating LEAs, as measured by the percentage of a district's personnel budget that is used for performance-related payments to effective (as measured by student achievement gains) teachers and principals. All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance report documenting their success in addressing these performance measures. The Department will use the applicant's performance data for program management and administration, in such areas as determining new and continuation funding and planning technical assistance. VII. Agency Contacts FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: April Lee, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W229, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone number:
(202)205-5224 or by e-mail: *tif@ed.gov* or by Internet at the following Web site: *http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/index.html* . If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the individuals listed in this section. VIII. Other Information *Electronic Access to This Document:* You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . Dated: November 8, 2006. Henry L. Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. [FR Doc. E6-19193 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Information Collection; Study of the Feasibility and Advisability of Establishing a Program of Free Return or Reduced Postage for Absentee Ballots—Focus Groups AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The EAC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a proposed information collection. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on respondents. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before January 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection in writing to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005, Attn: Ms. Laiza N. Otero (or via the Internet at *lotero@eac.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the Focus Group Discussion Guide, please, write to the above address or call Ms. Laiza N. Otero at
(202)566-3100. You may also view the proposed collection instrument by visiting our Web site at *http://www.eac.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Study of the Feasibility and Advisability of Establishing a Program of Free Return or Reduced Postage for Absentee Ballots—Focus Groups *OMB Number:* Pending. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Needs and Uses:* Sec. 246 of the Help America Vote Act requires the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), in consultation with the United States Postal Service, to conduct a study on the feasibility and advisability of establishing a program under which the U.S. Postal Service shall waive or otherwise reduce the amount of postage applicable with respect to absentee ballots returned by voters in general elections for Federal office. This study does not address the cost to the U.S. Postal Service for free postage for sending absentee ballots but may consider costs to election officials that are related to implementing such a program including the costs of sending absentee ballots to voters. It also does not include consideration of the 39 U.S.C. 3406 provisions for the mailing of balloting materials for military and overseas absentee voters. As part of the study the Commission is directed to conduct a nationwide survey of potential beneficiaries, including the elderly and disabled, and to take into account the results of this survey in determining the feasibility and advisability of establishing such a program. This survey will be supplemented by focus groups among potential beneficiaries—elderly, disabled, low-income—to obtain more specific information on the challenges these populations face when participating in election and to assess the potential benefit these populations might receive from a program of free return or reduced postage for absentee ballots. At the conclusion of the study effort, EAC is required to submit a report to Congress with recommendations for such legislative and administrative action as EAC determines appropriate. The report shall contain an analysis of the feasibility of implementing such a program and an estimate of the costs. It is required to specifically contain recommendations regarding the elderly and disabled populations, including ways a free absentee ballot return postage program would target these populations and identify methods to increase the number of such individuals who vote in elections for Federal office. *Affected Public:* Citizens. *Number of Respondents:* 36. *Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Burden per Response:* 1.25 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 45 hours. Information will be collected through a series of three focus groups comprised of potential beneficiaries of a free and/or discounted absentee ballot postage program: One focus group will be dedicated to issues confronting the elderly population; one focus group will be dedicated to issues confronting disabled people; and one focus group will be dedicated to issues confronting the low-income citizens. At least one official from the United States Postal Service will observe each planned focus group. The topics that will be explored include: 1. The challenges that the particular population faces when participating in elections. a. Information on respondents' previous experiences with voting in Federal elections. Information on any difficulties encountered in the process of voting and how the issues were resolved. 2. The concerns members of the particular population have about voting (e.g. voter intimidation, voter confidentiality, security, use of ballots). a. Information on particular incidents that has prevented respondent from being able to vote. 3. The possible remedies to those challenges that would likely increase the rates of voter participation in the particular population (e.g. relaxed absentee voting laws, better accessibility to polling places, voter education). a. Information on respondents' interest in absentee ballot voting. 4. The likelihood that a free or discounted absentee ballot postage program would assist the particular population. a. Information on respondents' interest in a program of free or discounted postage for absentee ballots. 5. How the program could possibly be implemented to target the particular population. a. Information on creating and implementing the program to ensure that it benefits the particular population. 6. The factors that would make reaching the particular population difficult. a. Information on advertising such a program to the particular population so that they can take advantage of the change. Thomas R. Wilkey, Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission. [FR Doc. 06-9191 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 18
Traces to 18 documents
CFR
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- De minimis net countervailable subsidies and weighted-average dumping margins disregarded.§ 351.106
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- Changed circumstances review under section 751(b) of the Act.§ 351.216
- Revocation of orders; termination of suspended investigations.§ 351.222
- Review procedures.§ 351.221
- Annual absolute, competitive preference, and invitational priorities.§ 75.105
- Requirements for a continuation award.§ 75.118
U.S. Code
register
16 references not yet in our index
- 416 F. Supp. 2d 1334
- 893 F.2d 337
- 110 F. Supp. 2d 992
- 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333
- 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246
- 366 F. Supp. 2
- 374 F. Supp. 2
- 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336
- 337 F.3d 1373
- 50 CFR 648.73(a)(4)
- 16 USC 1531-1543
- 32 CFR 989
- 37 CFR 404
- Pub. L. 109-149
- 119 Stat. 2864
- 34 CFR 79
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notification of a proposal for an exempted fishing permit to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments
F. Supp.416 F. Supp. 2d 1334
F. App'x893 F.2d 337
F. Supp.110 F. Supp. 2d 992
Cites 34 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources