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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-11-20 · Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA · Notices

Notices. Notice

20,471 words·~93 min read·/register/2006/11/20/06-9268

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Inviting Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program Applications for Feasibility Studies or Feasibility and Marketing Studies AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), an Agency within the Rural Development mission area, announces the availability of grants up to $50,000 per application from the Rural Business Enterprise Grant
(RBEG)Program for fiscal year
(FY)2007 for feasibility studies or feasibility and marketing studies, to be competitively awarded. The amount available for these competitive grants is $250,000. Funding under this announcement is targeted to the Rural Economic Area Partnerships
(REAP)Zones. A list of current REAP Zones is available at *http://www.ezec.gov/communit/reap.html.* This notice is being issued prior to passage of a final appropriations bill to allow applicants sufficient time to leverage financing, submit applications, and give the Agency time to process applications. DATES: The deadline for receipt of applications in the Rural Development State Office is December 8, 2006. Applications received at a Rural Development State Office after that date will not be considered for FY 2007 funding. ADDRESSES: For further information, entities located in REAP Zones wishing to apply for assistance should contact a Rural Development State Office to receive further information and copies of the application package. REAP Zones are located in the states of New York, North Dakota, and Vermont. Contact information for the Rural Development State Offices in those states is as follows: New York, USDA Rural Development State Office, The Galleries of Syracuse, 441 South Salina Street, Suite 357, Syracuse, NY 13202-2541,
(315)477-6400/TDD
(315)477-6447. North Dakota, USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser, P.O. Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502-1737,
(701)530-2037/TDD
(701)530-2113. Vermont/New Hampshire, USDA Rural Development State Office, City Center, 3rd Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT 05602,
(802)828-6000/TDD
(802)223-6365. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview *Federal Agency:* Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS). *Funding Opportunity Title:* Rural Business Enterprise Grants. *Announcement Type:* Initial announcement. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 10.769. *Dates:* Application Deadline: Completed applications must be received in the Rural Development State Office no later than December 8, 2006, to be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Applications received after this date will not be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. I. Funding Opportunity Description The RBEG program is authorized by section 310B(c) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)). Regulations are contained in 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G. The primary objective of the program is to improve the economic conditions of rural areas. The program is administered on behalf of RBS at the State level by the Rural Development State Offices. Assistance provided to rural areas under this program may include feasibility studies or feasibility and marketing studies for business development and economic development planning. The maximum grant available under this NOFA is $50,000. Awards are made on a competitive basis using specific selection criteria contained in 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G. Information required to be in the application package include an SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” RD 1940-20, “Request for Environmental Information,” Scope of Work Narrative, Income Statement, Balance Sheet or Audit for previous three years, AD-1047, “Debarment/Suspension Certification,” AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion,” AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements,” Restrictions on Lobbying, RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement,” RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement,” Letter stating Board authorization to obtain assistance, Letter certifying citizenship, as referenced in 7 CFR 1942.307(b), and Evidence of Insurance and Bonding equal to the amount of Federal funds with the Agency listed as the loss payee. Applications will be tentatively scored by the State Offices and submitted to the National Office for review. To ensure that only high quality projects are funded, States may submit only those projects to the National Office that score one-hundred
(100)or more of the points available at the State level. After submission to the National Office, applications will be ranked based on merit. The Agency Administrator may then assign up to 50 discretionary points to ensure geographic distribution of funds. After the assignment of discretionary points, final selections will be made. Definitions The definitions are published at 7 CFR 1942.304. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Grant. *Fiscal Year Funds:* FY 2007. *Total Funding:* $250,000. *Approximate Number of Awards:* 5. *Average Award:* $50,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* February 15, 2007. III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants Grants may be made to public bodies and private nonprofit corporations serving rural areas. Public bodies include States, counties, cities, townships, and incorporated town and villages, boroughs, authorities, districts, and Indian tribes on Federal and State reservations and other Federally recognized Indian Tribal groups in rural areas. B. Cost Sharing or Matching Matching funds are not required. C. Other Eligibility Requirements Applications will only be accepted from Rural Economic Area Partnerships
(REAP)Zones for feasibility studies or feasibility and marketing studies. D. Completeness Eligibility Applications will not be considered for funding if they do not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility or missing required elements. IV. Fiscal Year 2007 Application and Submission Information A. Address To Request Application Package For further information, entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact the Rural Development State Office identified in this NOFA to obtain copies of the application package. B. Content and Form of Submission An application must contain all of the required elements. Each application received in a Rural Development State Office will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the eligible purposes contained in section 310B(c) of the CONACT. Each selection priority criterion outlined in 7 CFR 1942.305 (b)(3), must be addressed in the application. Failure to address any of the criteria will result in a zero-point score for that criterion and will impact the overall evaluation of the application. Copies of 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G, will be provided to any interested applicant making a request to a Rural Development State Office listed in this notice. C. Submission Dates and Times *Application Deadline Date:* December 8, 2006. *Explanation of Deadlines:* Applications must be in the Rural Development State Office by the deadline date. All eligible applications, along with tentative scoring sheets and the Rural Development State Director's recommendation, will be referred to the National Office no later than December 29, 2006, for final scoring and selection for an award. V. Application Review Information The National Office will score applications based on the grant selection criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G and will select a grantee subject to the grantee's satisfactory submission of a formal application and related materials in the manner established by RBS in accordance with 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G. VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices Successful applicants will receive notification for funding from the Rural Development State Office. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations before the grant award will be approved. Unsuccessful applications will receive notification by mail. B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in the 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G and 7 CFR chapter XXX. VII. Agency Contacts For general questions about this announcement, please contact your USDA Rural Development State Office identified in this NOFA. Nondiscrimination Statement “The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call
(800)795-3272 (voice) or
(202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.” Dated: November 14, 2006. Jackie J. Gleason, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service. [FR Doc. E6-19499 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Inviting Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program Preapplications for Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation Systems AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), an Agency within the Rural Development mission area, announces the availability of two individual grants: One single $495,000 grant from the passenger transportation funds appropriated for the Rural Business Enterprise Grant
(RBEG)program and another single $250,000 grant for Federally Recognized Native American Tribes' (FRNAT) from funds appropriated for the RBEG program. RBS will administer these awards under the RBEG program and 7 U.S.C. 1932(c)(2) for fiscal year
(FY)2007. Historically, Congress has allotted earmark funding for these specific programs. This notice is being issued prior to passage of a final appropriations bill, which may or may not provide an appropriation for these programs, to allow applicants sufficient time to leverage financing, submit applications, and give the Agency time to process applications within the current fiscal year. Each grant is to be competitively awarded to a qualified national organization. These grants are to provide technical assistance for rural transportation and rural transportation to FRNAT's. This notice will be amended should funding in excess of projected levels be received. DATES: The deadline for receipt of preapplications in the Rural Development State Office is January 31, 2007. Applications received at a Rural Development State Office after that date will not be considered for FY 2007 funding. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Mason, Loan Specialist, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, STOP 3225, Room 6866, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone:
(202)690-1433, FAX:
(202)720-2213. ADDRESSES: For additional information, entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact a Rural Development State Office to obtain copies of the application package. A list of Rural Development State Offices follows: District of Columbia Rural Development Business Programs, USDA, Specialty Lenders Division, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 3225, Room 6867, Washington, DC 20250-3225,
(202)720-1400 Alabama USDA Rural Development State Office, Sterling Centre, Suite 601, 4121 Carmichael Road, Montgomery, AL 36106-3683,
(334)279-3400/TDD
(334)279-3495 Alaska USDA Rural Development State Office, 800 West Evergreen, Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645-6539,
(907)761-7705/TDD
(907)761-8905 Arizona USDA Rural Development State Office, 230 N. 1st Ave., Suite 206, Phoenix, AZ 85003,
(602)280-8701/TDD
(602)280-8705 Arkansas USDA Rural Development State Office, 700 West Capitol Avenue, Room 3416, Little Rock, AR 72201-3225,
(501)301-3200/TDD
(501)301-3279 California USDA Rural Development State Office, 430 G Street, # 4169, Davis, CA 95616-4169,
(530)792-5800/TDD
(530)792-5848 Colorado USDA Rural Development State Office, 655 Parfet Street, Room E100, Lakewood, CO 80215,
(720)544-2903/TDD
(720)544-2976 Delaware-Maryland USDA Rural Development State Office, 1221 College Park Drive, Suite 200, Dover, DE 19904,
(302)857-3580/TDD
(302)857-3585 Florida/Virgin Islands USDA Rural Development State Office, 4440 NW 25th Place, P.O. Box 147010, Gainesville, FL 32614-7010,
(352)338-3400/TDD
(352)338-3499 Georgia USDA Rural Development State Office, Stephens Federal Building, 355 E. Hancock Avenue, Athens, GA 30601-2768,
(706)546-2162/TDD
(706)546-2034 Hawaii USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 311, 154 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720,
(808)933-8380/TDD
(808)933-8321 Idaho USDA Rural Development State Office, 9173 West Barnes Dr., Suite A1, Boise, ID 83709,
(208)378-5600/TDD
(208)378-5644 Illinois USDA Rural Development State Office, 2118 W. Park Court, Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821,
(217)403-6200/TDD
(217)403-6240 Indiana USDA Rural Development State Office, 5975 Lakeside Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278,
(317)290-3100/TDD
(317)290-3343 Iowa USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 873, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50309,
(515)284-4663/TDD
(515)284-4858 Kansas USDA Rural Development State Office, 1303 S.W., First American Place, Suite 100, Topeka, KS 66604-4040,
(785)271-2700/TDD
(785)271-2767 Kentucky USDA Rural Development State Office, 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 40503,
(859)224-7300/TDD
(859)224-7422 Louisiana USDA Rural Development State Office, 3727 Government Street, Alexandria, LA 71302,
(318)473-7921/TDD
(318)473-7655 Maine USDA Rural Development State Office, 967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 4, P.O. Box 405, Bangor, ME 04402-0405,
(207)990-9160/TDD
(207)942-7331 Massachusetts/Rhode Island/Connecticut USDA Rural Development State Office, 451 West Street, Suite 2, Amherst, MA 01002-2999,
(413)253-4300/TDD
(413)253-4590 Michigan USDA Rural Development State Office, 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI 48823,
(517)324-5190/TDD
(517)324-5169 Minnesota USDA Rural Development State Office, 375 Jackson Street, Suite 410, St. Paul, MN 55101-1853,
(651)602-7800/TDD
(651)602-3799 Mississippi USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Suite 831, 100 W. Capitol Street, Jackson, MS 39269,
(601)965-4316/TDD
(601)965-5850 Missouri USDA Rural Development State Office, 601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite 235, Columbia, MO 65203,
(573)876-0976/TDD
(573)876-9480 Montana USDA Rural Development State Office, 900 Technology Boulevard, Suite B, P.O. Box 85, Bozeman, MT 59771,
(406)585-2580/TDD
(406)585-2562 Nebraska USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 152, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE 68508,
(402)437-5551/TDD
(402)437-5093 Nevada USDA Rural Development State Office, 1390 South Curry Street, Carson City, NV 89703-5146,
(775)887-1222/TDD
(775)885-0633 New Jersey USDA Rural Development State Office, 8000 Midlantic Drive, 5th Floor North, Suite 500, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054,
(856)787-7700/TDD
(856)787-7784 New Mexico USDA Rural Development State Office, 6200 Jefferson Street, NE, Room 255, Albuquerque, NM 87109,
(505)761-4950/TDD
(505)761-4938 New York USDA Rural Development State Office, The Galleries of Syracuse, 441 South Salina Street, Suite 357, Syracuse, NY 13202-2541,
(315)477-6400/TDD
(315)477-6447 North Carolina USDA Rural Development State Office, 4405 Bland Road, Suite 260, Raleigh, NC 27609,
(919)873-2000/TDD
(919)873-2003 North Dakota USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser, P.O. Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502-1737,
(701)530-2037/TDD
(701)530-2113 Ohio USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 507, 200 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215-2418,
(614)255-2400/TDD
(614)255-2554 Oklahoma USDA Rural Development State Office, 100 USDA, Suite 108, Stillwater, OK 74074-2654,
(405)742-1000/TDD
(405)742-1007 Oregon USDA Rural Development State Office, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 801, Portland, OR 97232,
(503)414-3300/TDD
(503)414-3387 Pennsylvania USDA Rural Development State Office, One Credit Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, PA 17110-2996,
(717)237-2299/TDD
(717)237-2261 Puerto Rico USDA Rural Development State Office, IBM Building, Suite 601, 654 Munos Rivera Avenue, San Juan, PR 00918-6106,
(787)766-5095/TDD
(787)766-5332 South Carolina USDA Rural Development State Office, Strom Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 Assembly Street, Room 1007,Columbia, SC 29201,
(803)765-5163/TDD
(803)765-5697 South Dakota USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Room 210, 200 Fourth Street, SW, Huron, SD 57350,
(605)352-1100/TDD
(605)352-1147 Tennessee USDA Rural Development State Office, 3322 West End Avenue, Suite 300, Nashville, TN 37203-1084,
(615)783-1300 Texas USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Suite 102, 101 South Main, Temple, TX 76501,
(254)742-9700/TDD
(254)742-9712 Utah USDA Rural Development State Office, Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT 84147-0350,
(801)524-4320/TDD
(801)524-3309 Vermont/New Hampshire USDA Rural Development State Office, City Center, 3rd Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT 05602,
(802)828-6000/TDD
(802)223-6365 Virginia USDA Rural Development State Office, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 238, Richmond, VA 23229-5014,
(804)287-1550/TDD
(804)287-1753 Washington USDA Rural Development State Office, 1835 Black Lake Boulevard SW., Suite B, Olympia, WA 98512-5715,
(360)704-7740/TDD
(360)704-7760 West Virginia USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, 75 High Street, Room 320, Morgantown, WV 26505-7500,
(304)284-4860/TDD
(304)284-4836 Wisconsin USDA Rural Development State Office, 4949 Kirschling Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481,
(715)345-7600/TDD
(715)345-7614 Wyoming USDA Rural Development State Office, 100 East B, Federal Building, Room 1005, P.O. Box 11005, Casper, WY 82602-5006,
(307)233-6700/TDD
(307)233-6733 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Grants offered under this Notice are authorized by section 310B(c)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)(2)). The RBEG program is administered on behalf of RBS at the State level by the Rural Development State Offices. The primary objective of the program is to improve the economic conditions of rural areas. Assistance provided to rural areas under this program may include on-site technical assistance to local and regional governments, public transit agencies, and related nonprofit and for-profit organizations in rural areas; the development of training materials; and the provision of necessary training assistance to local officials and agencies in rural areas. Awards under the RBEG passenger transportation program will be made on a competitive basis using specific selection criteria contained in 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G, and in accordance with section 310B(c)(2) of the CONACT. That subpart also contains the information required to be in the application package. For the FRNAT grant, which must benefit Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, at least 75 percent of the benefits of the project must be received by members of Federally Recognized Native American Tribes. The project that scores the greatest number of points based on the RBEG selection criteria and Administrator's points will be selected for each grant. Applications will be tentatively scored by the State Offices and submitted to the National Office for review, final scoring, and selection. Applicants must be qualified national nonprofit organizations with experience in providing technical assistance and training to rural communities for the purpose of improving passenger transportation service or facilities. To be considered “national” RBS requires a qualified organization to provide evidence that it operates in multi-State areas. There is not a requirement to use the grant funds in a multi-State area. Under this notice, grants will be made to qualified, private, nonprofit organizations for the provision of technical assistance and training to rural communities for the purpose of improving passenger transportation services or facilities. Fiscal Year 2007 Preapplications Submission Each application received in a Rural Development State Office will be reviewed to determine if this application is consistent with the eligible purposes contained in section 310B(c)(2) of the CONACT. Each selection priority criterion outlined in 7 CFR 1942.305(b)(3), must be addressed in the application. Failure to address any of the criteria will result in a zero-point score for that criterion and impact the overall evaluation of the application. Copies of 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G, will be provided to any interested applicant making a request to a Rural Development State Office listed in this notice. All projects to receive technical assistance through these passenger transportation grant funds are to be identified when the applications are submitted to the Rural Development State Office. Multiple project applications must identify each individual project, indicate the amount of funding requested for each individual project, and address the criteria as stated above for each individual project. For multiple-project applications, the average of the individual project scores will be the score for that application. All eligible applications, along with tentative scoring sheets and the Rural Development State Director's recommendation, will be referred to the National Office no later than March 16, 2007, for final scoring and selection for an award. The National Office will score applications based on the grant selection criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G and will select a grantee subject to the grantee's satisfactory submission of a formal application and related materials in the manner and timeframe established by RBS in accordance with 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G. Nondiscrimination Statement “The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. 20250-9410 or call
(800)795-3272 (voice) or
(202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.” Dated: November 14, 2006. Jackie J. Gleason, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service. [FR Doc. E6-19500 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Faith-Based and Community Initiatives-Equal Treatment Rule; Notice of Request for Collection of Public Information With the Use of a Survey AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed collection; comments requested. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Development's intention to request clearance for a new information collection to measure Rural Development implementation of and compliance with the Equal Treatment Rule (7 CFR part 16) and Executive Order
(EO)13279 Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by January 19, 2007 to be assured of consideration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhonda Brown, Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Coordinator, Operations and Management, Rural Development, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, phone:
(202)692-0298, e-mail: *rhonda.brown@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Rural Development-Voluntary Survey on the Equal Treatment Rule. *Type of Request:* New Information Collection. *Abstract:* The Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
(FBCI)was implemented in the Department of Agriculture by Executive Order
(EO)13280-Responstibilities of the Department of Agriculture and the Agency for International Development with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, December 12, 2002. FBCI Reporting and Outreach began in Rural Development in 2004. Now that the programs are in the third year of this Presidential Initiative and to meet the long term goal of improved participant outcomes, it is time to measure customer experience with Rural Development's implementation of the Equal Treatment Rule and establish compliance benchmarks. The 14 Rural Development programs under the FBCI provide insured or guaranteed loans and/or grants to eligible applicants (including non-profit entities) located in rural geographic areas to assist them in providing services to beneficiaries, low-income individuals, and communities. Loan and grant applications and awards are processed through approximately 900 Field Offices. In accordance with Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA)and EO 13280, the results of the survey will enable Rural Development to measure the results and overall effectiveness of FBCI outreach and implementation of and compliance with the Equal Treatment Rule and EO Orders 13279 and 13280, as well as implement compliance action plans and measure improvements. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per response. *Respondents:* Program non-profit applicants. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 4,000. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 4,000. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 320 hours. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at
(202)692-0043. Comments 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 will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. Comments may also be submitted electronically through Regulations.gov. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Dated: November 9, 2006. Russell T. Davis, Administrator, Rural Housing Service. [FR Doc. E6-19501 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Order No. 1487 Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 163, Ponce, Puerto Rico, Area Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas, Codezol, C.D.* , grantee of FTZ 163, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 163 to include a site (Site 8 - 6 acres, Lugo warehouse) in Hormigueros, Puerto Rico, adjacent to the Ponce Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 10-2006; filed 4/3/06); *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment was given in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 18276, 4/11/06), and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and, *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest; *Now, therefore* , the Board hereby orders: The application to expand FTZ 163 is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and subject to a sunset provision that would terminate further authority for the proposed site on November 1, 2011, unless the site is activated during that time period pursuant to 19 CFR Part 146 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations. Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of November 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Pierre V. Duy, Acting Executive Secretary [FR Doc. E6-19599 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-583-816) Notice of Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 13, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the administrative review of the order on certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. *See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Rescind in Part* , 71 FR 39663 (July 13, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The merchandise covered by this order is certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan as described in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice. The period of review (“POR”) is June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we made one change to the margin calculation. The final weight-averaged dumping margin is listed below in the section titled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: November 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or Judy Lao, Office 7, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0405 or
(202)482-7924, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department's preliminary results of review were published on July 13, 2006. *See Preliminary Results* . We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . We received written comments on August 14, 2006, from Flowline Division of Markovitz Enterprise, Inc., Shaw Allow Piping Products, Inc., Gerlin, Inc., and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc., (collectively, “petitioners”), and from Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Ltd. (“Ta Chen”). On August 21, 2006, we received rebuttal comments from petitioners and Ta Chen. The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Scope of the Order The products subject to this order are certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings, whether finished or unfinished, under 14 inches inside diameter. Certain welded stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (“pipe fittings”) are used to connect pipe sections in piping systems where conditions require welded connections. The subject merchandise is used where one or more of the following conditions is a factor in designing the piping system:
(1)Corrosion of the piping system will occur if material other than stainless steel is used;
(2)contamination of the material in the system by the system itself must be prevented;
(3)high temperatures are present;
(4)extreme low temperatures are present; and
(5)high pressures are contained within the system. Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes, with the following five shapes the most basic: “elbows,” “tees,” “reducers,” “stub ends,” and “caps.” The edges of finished pipe fittings are beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings are excluded from this review. The pipe fittings subject to this review are classifiable under subheading 7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive. Pipe fittings manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials specification A774 are included in the scope of this order. Partial Rescission of Review In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department issued a notice of intent to rescind the review with respect to Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co., Ltd. (“Liang Feng”), Tru-Flow Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Tru-Flow”), Censor International Corporation (“Censor”) and PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. (“PFP”), because we found that they had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. *See Preliminary Results* at 39663. As the Department received no comments on this notice of intent to rescind we continue to find that rescission of the review concerning Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP is appropriate. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the review with respect to Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs, as well as the Department's findings, in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (“Decision Memorandum”), dated November 13, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit in room B-099 of the main Commerce building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov* . The paper copy and electronic version of the public version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made a minor correction to include deductions reported in the field BILLADJU (U.S. billing adjustments) in the discount and rebates adjustment to U.S. price. This did not change the margin. *See* the Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 and Sales Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Pipe Butt-weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. and Ta Chen International
(CA)Corp., (November 13, 2006). Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005: Company Weighted- Average Margin (percent) Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd 0.79 Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise produced by Ta Chen. Antidumping duties for the rescinded companies, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP, shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(I). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification applies to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies examined in this review (i.e., companies for which a dumping margin was calculated) where the companies did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act:
(1)for the companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above;
(2)for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the less-than-fair-value investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate from the most recent review;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or less-than-fair-value the investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will be 51.01 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification of Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402
(f)to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 13, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum Issues 1. Reliability of Ta Chen's Financial Statements 2. CEP Offset 3. CEP Profit Calculation 4. Calculation of Margin on Weight Basis 5. Alleged Calculation Errors [FR Doc. E6-19611 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order/Pursuant to Court Decision: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 31, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade (“Court”) entered a stipulated judgment in the consolidated case of *Dorbest Limited, et. al.* v. *United States* , Consol. Ct. No. 05-cv-00003 (“ *Court Order* ”). This litigation arises out of the Department's *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 67313 (November 17, 2004) (“ *Final Determination* ”), as amended, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) (“ *Amended Final Determination and Order* ”). The court case filed by Lacquer Craft Manufacturing Company Ltd. (“Lacquer Craft”) ( *Lacquer Craft Manufacturing Company Ltd.* v. *United States* , Court No. 05-00083), was consolidated into the case filed by Dorbest Limited, et. al. (Court No. 05-00003). Pursuant to the Court's Order, Lacquer Craft's court case (Court No. 05-00083) has been severed from the consolidated litigation (Court No. 05-00003), and Lacquer Craft's claims against the government dismissed. Because the litigation in Lacquer Craft's case is now concluded, the Department is issuing an amended final determination in accordance with the Stipulated Judgement in this action. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan, 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)482-0414. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 17, 2004, the Department published its notice of final determination in the investigation of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. *See Final Determination* . On January 4, 2005, the Department published its notice of amended final determination and antidumping duty order in the investigation on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. *See Amended Final Determination and Order.* On March 4, 2005, Lacquer Craft filed its complaint with the Court with respect to the Department's *Amended Final Determination and Order* in *Lacquer Craft Manufacturing Company, Ltd.* v. *United States* , Ct. No. 05-00083. Lacquer Craft's court case was subsequently consolidated with court number 05-00003 on June 29, 2005. Pursuant to the Court's Order, Lacquer Craft's court case (Court No. 05-00083) was severed from the consolidated litigation (Court No. 05-00003), and Lacquer Craft's court case against the government was dismissed. The Court Order further orders the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) to
(i)exclude wooden bedroom furniture from the Amended Final Determination and Order when it is both produced and exported by Lacquer Craft, 1 and
(ii)amend the weighted-average dumping margin applied to respondents with separate-rate status 2 to exclude Lacquer Craft from the calculation for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the Amended Final Determination resulting from the Court's stipulated judgment. 1 For purposes of this order, wooden bedroom furniture produced and exported by Lacquer Craft includes furniture produced and exported by any of Lacquer Craft Manufacturing Company Ltd.'s factories in the People's Republic of China, which currently are in Dong Guan (Lacquer Craft Manufacturing Company Ltd. (Dong Guan) and Zhejiang (Lacquer Craft Manufacturing Company Ltd. (Zhejiang)). 2 For purposes of this order, “respondents with separate-rate status” shall mean the non-mandatory respondents granted a separate rate by the Department in the underlying investigation of wooden bedroom furniture. Commerce's dumping margin applied to such respondents is calculated as the weighted-average of the rates of the mandatory respondents. Amended Final Determination Because all claims filed by Lacquer Craft against the Department have been dismissed, and because the litigation in Lacquer Craft's de-consolidated court case is concluded, we are now amending the *Amended Final Determination and Order* to reflect the results of the Court's Order. Lacquer Craft is excluded from the Order. The amended weighted-average rate applied to respondents with separate-rate status is 7.24 percent. The rate applied to the PRC-wide entity remains unchanged. With the above revisions, the dumping margins for this Order are as follows: Company Weighted-average margin (percent) Dongguan Lung Dong Furniture Co., Ltd., or Dongguan Dong He Furniture Co., Ltd. 2.32 Rui Feng Woodwork Co., Ltd., or Rui Feng Lumber Development Co., Ltd. or Dorbest Limited 7.87 Lacquer Craft Mfg. Co., Ltd. Excluded Markor International Furniture (Tianjin) Manufacturing Company, Ltd. 0.83 Shing Mark Enterprise Co., Ltd., or Carven Industries Limited (BVI), or Carven I Industries Limited (HK), or Dongguan Zhenxin Furniture Co., Ltd., or Dongguan Yongpeng Furniture Co., Ltd. 4.96 Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., or Orin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., or Shanghai Starcorp Furniture Co., Ltd. 15.78 Alexandre International Corp., or Southern Art Development Ltd., or Alexandre Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., or Southern Art Furniture Factory 7.24 Art Heritage International, Ltd., or Super Art Furniture Co., Ltd., or Artwork Metal & Plastic Co., Ltd., or Jibson Industries Ltd., or Always Loyal International 7.24 Billy Wood Industrial (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., or Great Union Industrial (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., or Time Faith Ltd. 7.24 Changshu HTC Import & Export Co., Ltd. 7.24 Cheng Meng Furniture
(PTE)Ltd., or China Cheng Meng Decoration & Furniture (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. 7.24 Chuan Fa Furniture Factory 7.24 Classic Furniture Global Co., Ltd. 7.24 Clearwise Co., Ltd. 7.24 COE Ltd. 7.24 Dalian Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Dalian Huafeng Furniture Co., Ltd 7.24 Decca Furniture Limited 7.24 Dongguan Cambridge Furniture Co., or Glory Oceanic Co., Ltd. 7.24 Dongguan Chunsan Wood Products Co., Ltd., or Trendex Industries Ltd. 7.24 Dongguan Creation Furniture Co., Ltd., or Creation Industries Co., Ltd. 7.24 Dongguan Grand Style Furniture, or Hong Kong Da Zhi Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Dongguan Great Reputation Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Dongguan Hero Way Woodwork Co., Ltd., or Dongguan Da Zhong Woodwork Co., Ltd., or Hero Way Enterprises Ltd., or Well Earth International Ltd. 7.24 Dongguan Hung Sheng Artware Products Co., Ltd., or Coronal Enterprise Co., Ltd. 7.24 Dongguan Kin Feng Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Dongguan Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd., or Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Dongguan Liaobushangdun Huada Furniture Factory, or Great Rich
(HK)Enterprise Co. Ltd. 7.24 Dongguan Qingxi Xinyi Craft Furniture Factory (Joyce Art Factory) 7.24 Dongguan Singways Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., or Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., or Shanghai Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., or Fairmont Designs 7.24 Dongying Huanghekou Furniture Industry Co., Ltd. 7.24 Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 7.24 Eurosa (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., or Eurosa Furniture Co.,
(PTE)Ltd. 7.24 Ever Spring Furniture Co. Ltd., or S.Y.C. Family Enterprise Co., Ltd. 7.24 Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. 7.24 Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd., or Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc. 7.24 Gaomi Yatai Wooden Ware Co., Ltd., or Team Prospect International Ltd., or Money Gain International Co. 7.24 Garri Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., or Molabile International, Inc., or Weei Geo Enterprise Co., Ltd. 7.24 Green River Wood (Dongguan) Ltd. 7.24 Guangming Group Wumahe Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings Ltd., Pyla HK, Ltd., and Maria Yee, Inc. 7.24 Hainan Jong Bao Lumber Co., Ltd., or Jibbon Enterprise Co., Ltd. 7.24 Hamilton & Spill Ltd. 7.24 Hang Hai Woodcraft's Art Factory 7.24 Hualing Furniture (China) Co., Ltd., or Tony House Manufacture (China) Co., Ltd., or Buysell Investments Ltd., or Tony House Industries Co., Ltd. 7.24 Jardine Enterprise, Ltd. 7.24 Jiangmen Kinwai Furniture Decoration Co., Ltd. 7.24 Jiangmen Kinwai International Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Jiangsu Weifu Group Fullhouse Furniture Manufacturing. Corp. 7.24 Jiangsu Yuexing Furniture Group Co., Ltd. 7.24 Jiedong Lehouse Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 King's Way Furniture Industries Co., Ltd., or Kingsyear Ltd. 7.24 Kuan Lin Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., or Kuan Lin Furniture Factory, or Kuan Lin Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Kunshan Lee Wood Product Co., Ltd. 7.24 Kunshan Summit Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Langfang Tiancheng Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Leefu Wood (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., or King Rich International, Ltd. 7.24 Link Silver Ltd. (V.I.B.), or Forward Win Enterprises Co. Ltd., or Dongguan Haoshun Furniture Ltd. 7.24 Locke Furniture Factory, or Kai Chan Furniture Co., Ltd., or Kai Chan (Hong Kong) Enterprise Ltd., or Taiwan Kai Chan Co., Ltd. 7.24 Longrange Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Nanhai Baiyi Woodwork Co., Ltd. 7.24 Nanhai Jiantai Woodwork Co., Ltd., or Fortune Glory Industrial Ltd. (H.K. Ltd) 7.24 Nantong Dongfang Orient Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Nantong Yushi Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Nathan International Ltd., or Nathan Rattan Factory 7.24 Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. 7.24 Passwell Corporation, or Pleasant Wave Ltd. 7.24 Perfect Line Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Prime Wood International Co., Ltd., or Prime Best International Co., Ltd., or Prime Best Factory, or Liang Huang (Jiaxing) Enterprise Co., Ltd. 7.24 PuTian JingGong Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Qingdao Liangmu Co., Ltd. 7.24 Restonic (Dongguan) Furniture Ltd., or Restonic Far East (Samoa) Ltd. 7.24 RiZhao SanMu Woodworking Co., Ltd. 7.24 Season Furniture Manufacturing Co., or Season Industrial Development Co. 7.24 Sen Yeong International Co., Ltd., or Sheh Hau International Trading Ltd. 7.24 Shanghai Jian Pu Export & Import Co., Ltd. 7.24 Shanghai Maoji Imp and Exp Co., Ltd. 7.24 Sheng Jing Wood Products (Beijing) Co., Ltd., or Telstar Enterprises Ltd. 7.24 Shenyang Shining Dongxing Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Shenzhen Forest Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Shenzhen Jiafa High Grade Furniture Co., Ltd., or Golden Lion International Trading Ltd. 7.24 Shenzhen New Fudu Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Shenzhen Wonderful Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Shenzhen Xiande Furniture Factory 7.24 Shenzhen Xingli Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Shun Feng Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Songgang Jasonwood Furniture Factory, or Jasonwood Industrial Co., Ltd. S.A. 7.24 Starwood Furniture Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 7.24 Starwood Industries Ltd. 7.24 Strongson Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., or Strongson Furniture Co., Ltd., or Strongson
(HK)Co. 7.24 Sunforce Furniture (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd., or Sun Fung Wooden Factory, or Sun Fung Co., or Shin Feng Furniture Co., Ltd., or Stupendous International Co., Ltd. 7.24 Superwood Co., Ltd., or Lianjiang Zongyu Art Products Co., Ltd. 7.24 Tarzan Furniture Industries Ltd., or Samso Industries Ltd. 7.24 Teamway Furniture (Dong Guan) Ltd., or Brittomart Inc. 7.24 Techniwood Industries Ltd., or Ningbo Furniture Industries Limited, or Ningbo Hengrun Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Tianjin Fortune Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Tianjin Master Home Furniture 7.24 Tianjin Phu Shing Woodwork Enterprise Co., Ltd. 7.24 Tianjin Sande Fairwood Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Tube-Smith Enterprise (ZhangZhou) Co., Ltd., or Tube-Smith Enterprise (Haimen) Co., Ltd., or Billonworth Enterprises Ltd. 7.24 Union Friend International Trade Co., Ltd. 7.24 U-Rich Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd., or U-Rich Furniture Ltd. 7.24 Wanhengtong Nueevder (Furniture) Manufacture Co., Ltd., or Dongguan Wanengtong Industry Co., Ltd. 7.24 Woodworth Wooden Industries (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. 7.24 Xiamen Yongquan Sci-Tech Development Co., Ltd. 7.24 Jiangsu XiangSheng Bedtime Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Xingli Arts & Crafts Factory of Yangchun 7.24 Yangchun Hengli Co. Ltd. 7.24 Yeh Brothers World Trade, Inc. 7.24 Yichun Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Yida Co., Ltd., or Yitai Worldwide, Ltd., or Yili Co., Ltd., or Yetbuild Co., Ltd. 7.24 Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. 7.24 Zhang Zhou Sanlong Wood Product Co., Ltd. 7.24 Zhangjiagang Zheng Yan Decoration Co., Ltd. 7.24 Zhangjiagang Daye Hotel Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Zhangzhou Guohui Industrial & Trade Co. Ltd. 7.24 Zhanjiang Sunwin Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. 7.24 Zhong Shan Fullwin Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Zhongshan Fookyik Furniture Co., Ltd. 7.24 Zhongshan Golden King Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd. 7.24 Zhoushan For-Strong Wood Co., Ltd. 7.24 PRC-Wide Rate* 198.08 * In the *Final Determination* , the Department inadvertently listed Tech Lane Wood Mfg. and Kee Jia Wood Mfg. separately in the weighted-average dumping margin chart, which may have led parties to conclude that these companies were entitled to a separate rate. This, in fact, is not the case. Subject merchandise produced/exported by Tech Lane Wood Mfg. and Kee Jia Wood Mfg. is subject to the PRC-wide rate. Within five business days of publication of this notice, the Department will issue instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to revise the cash deposit rates for the companies listed above that have a separate rate, effective as of the publication of this notice. Further, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by Lacquer Craft, without regard to antidumping duties, because Lacquer Craft is excluded from the antidumping duty order. This notice is published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: November 14, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19585 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-475-827) Correction to Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Final Court Decision and Partial Revocation of Order on Certain Cut-To-Length Plate from Italy AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 29, 2005, the Department of Commerce published in the **Federal Register** its *Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Final Court Decision and Partial Revocation of Order on Certain Cut-To-Length Plate from Italy* , 70 FR 51013 ( *Amended Final Determination* ). Due to an error in the *Amended Final Determination* pertaining to the effective date of the amended final determination, the Department is issuing a correction. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric B. Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6071. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction In the Amended Final Determination, we incorrectly stated that we would instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to: . . . collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the percentage of 2.45 percent ad valorem of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of subject merchandise from ILVA/ILT entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after April 16, 2004. See 70 FR at 51014. We correct and amend our *Amended Final Determination* with the following language: We will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the percentage of 2.45 percent *ad valorem* of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of subject merchandise from ILVA/ILT entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the publication date of this notice in the **Federal Register** . This notice is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: November 9, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19597 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 111406F] Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Application for an Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit. SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit
(EFP)from the American Fisheries Act
(AFA)Catcher Vessel Intercooperative, and the Pollock Conservation Cooperative. If granted, the EFP would allow the applicants to use a salmon bycatch reduction intra-cooperative agreement
(ICA)in the 2007 Bering Sea pollock fishery, and be exempt from closures of the salmon savings areas. This project is intended to promote the objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area
(FMP)and National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). ADDRESSES: Copies of the EFP application and the environmental assessment
(EA)are available by writing to the Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Walsh. The application and EA are also available from the Alaska Region, NMFS website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Anderson, 907-586-7228 or *jason.anderson@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
(BSAI)under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Regulations governing the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. The FMP and the implementing regulations at §§ 679.6 and 600.745(b) authorize issuance of EFPs to allow fishing that would be otherwise prohibited. Procedures for issuing EFPs are contained in the implementing regulations. NMFS received an EFP application from the AFA Catcher Vessel Intercooperative and the Pollock Conservation Cooperative (hereafter referred to as “applicants”) on October 19, 2006. The primary objective of the proposed EFP is to test the feasibility of an ICA designed to avoid salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The applicants developed the feasibility study in cooperation with NMFS scientists at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC). The project will provide information needed by the Council and NMFS to inform decision making on subsequent salmon bycatch reduction management actions. Specifically, the project will assess the feasibility of using an ICA to share salmon bycatch information among pollock fishery participants, determine areas of high salmon bycatch, and monitor vessels= ability to meet the operational guidelines of the ICA to avoid these areas in a manner that is not allowed under current regulations. Background Pacific salmon are caught incidentally in the BSAI trawl fisheries. Of the five species of Pacific salmon, Chinook salmon ( *Onchorynchus tshawytscha* ) and chum salmon ( *O. keta* ) are most often incidentally caught in the pollock fishery. Pacific salmon are placed into two categories for purposes of salmon bycatch management: Chinook and non-Chinook. The non-Chinook category is comprised of chum, sockeye ( *O. nerka* ), pink ( *O. gorbuscha* ), and coho ( *O. kisutch* ) salmon. However, from 2001 through 2006, chum salmon represented about 99 percent of non-Chinook salmon harvested incidentally in the pollock trawl fisheries. For purposes of this notice, all non-Chinook salmon are referred to as chum salmon. To address Chinook salmon bycatch concerns, the Council adopted several management measures designed to reduce overall Chinook salmon bycatch in the BSAI trawl fisheries. In 1995, the Council adopted and NMFS approved Amendment 21b to the FMP. Based on historic information on salmon bycatch, Amendment 21b established a Chinook salmon savings area (60 FR 31215, November 29, 1995). Under Amendment 21b, the Chinook salmon savings area closed to trawl gear when the incidental catch of Chinook salmon in BSAI trawl fisheries reached 48,000 fish. Amendment 58 to the FMP revised the Chinook salmon savings area measures (65 FR 60587, October 12, 2000). Amendment 58 reduced the Chinook salmon bycatch limit from 48,000 fish to 29,000 fish, mandated year-round accounting of Chinook bycatch in the directed pollock fishery, revised the boundaries of the Chinook salmon savings area closure, and implemented new closure dates. The timing of the closure depends on when the limit is reached as follows:
(1)Before April 15, the area closes immediately through April 15. After April 15, the area re-opens, but closes again from September 1 through December 31.
(2)Between April 15 and September 1, the area would close from September 1 through the end of the year.
(3)After September 1, the area closes immediately through the end of the year. The Chinook salmon savings area was further modified under Amendment 82 to the FMP (70 FR 9856, March 1, 2005). Amendment 82 established a separate Aleutian Islands subarea bycatch limit that when reached, would close the existing Chinook salmon savings area located in that subarea (Area 1). The Chinook salmon savings area in the Bering Sea subarea remained unchanged, but was designated as Area 2 of the Chinook salmon savings area (Figure 8 to 50 CFR part 679). The Council also adopted a time-area closure designed to reduce overall chum salmon bycatch in the BSAI trawl fisheries. In 1995, Amendment 35 to the FMP established the chum salmon savings area (60 FR 34904, July 5, 1995). This area is closed to all trawling from August 1 through August 31 of each year. Additionally, if 42,000 non-Chinook salmon are caught in the Catcher Vessel Operational Area during the period August 15 through October 14, the area remains closed for the remainder of the calendar year. Western Alaska Community Development Quota
(CDQ)groups receive, along with allocations of groundfish CDQ, individual allocations of Chinook and non-Chinook annual bycatch amounts. Vessels directed fishing for CDQ pollock are not subject to the chum and Chinook salmon savings area closures that apply to the non-CDQ pollock fisheries. Rather, vessels participating in directed CDQ pollock fisheries on behalf of individual CDQ groups are subject to group-specific closures only after they exceed a given CDQ group's chum or Chinook salmon bycatch limit. Thus, individual CDQ groups are subject to salmon savings area closures based on their respective catch of chum or Chinook salmon while directed fishing for CDQ pollock. The Chinook and chum salmon savings areas were adopted based on historic observed salmon bycatch rates and were designed to avoid high spatial and temporal levels of salmon bycatch. From 1990 through 2001, BSAI salmon bycatch averaged 37,819 Chinook and 69,332 chum annually. Recently, however, salmon bycatch numbers have increased substantially. In 2003, 54,911 Chinook salmon and 197,091 chum salmon were taken incidentally in the trawl fisheries. In 2004, salmon bycatch further increased to 62,493 Chinook and 465,650 chum salmon. Bycatch amounts remained high in 2005 and totaled 67,541 Chinook and 116,999 chum salmon. High bycatch amounts continued in 2006 with 74,120 Chinook and 317,375 chum salmon taken incidentally by September 23, 2006. Since establishment of the chum salmon savings area in 1995, the bycatch of non-Chinook salmon triggered closures in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. In February 2005, the Council initiated an Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to explore alternatives to the current salmon bycatch measures. Spatial and temporal comparisons of non-CDQ vessels fishing outside the salmon savings areas with CDQ vessels fishing inside the salmon savings areas indicated that bycatch rates were much higher outside the savings areas. In October 2005, the Council recommended Amendment 84 to the FMP. Amendment 84 would exempt non-CDQ and CDQ pollock vessels participating in a salmon bycatch reduction ICA from closures of the Chinook and chum salmon savings areas in the Bering Sea and enable the pollock fleet to utilize its internal cooperative structure to communicate amongst themselves and reduce salmon bycatch. Because the chum salmon savings area closes by regulation on August 1 of every year (§ 679.22(a)(10)) and this closure was expected to exacerbate the high salmon bycatch the pollock fleet has experienced in recent years, the Council stressed the importance of implementing Amendment 84 by August 1, 2006. The Council also asked for an annual report from participants in the salmon bycatch reduction ICA on how effective the agreement appears to be at reducing salmon bycatch, although regulations would not require reporting to the Council. The intent of the Council is to assess the effectiveness of the ICA in coordinating voluntary salmon bycatch reduction efforts by participants in the Bering Sea pollock fisheries. During the development of a draft proposed rule to implement Amendment 84, NOAA General Council, Alaska Region
(GCAK)determined that specific ICA provisions must be incorporated into regulations for compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)and National Standard 9. These provisions include requirements for:
(1)The initial salmon bycatch base rate that vessels' salmon bycatch rates will be compared against;
(2)Inseason adjustments to the initial salmon bycatch base rate;
(3)Cooperative tier assignments and inseason adjustments to those assignments;
(4)Closure notices and area closure requirements based on tier assignment;
(5)Internal ICA enforcement provisions; and
(6)Inseason data sharing provisions among the pollock harvesting cooperatives and western Alaska subsistence salmon user groups. These provisions are described in detail in the EA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES ) and are generally described below. Industry is concerned that incorporating components of the salmon bycatch reduction ICA into regulation would reduce their operational flexibility and ability to respond to inseason changes in salmon distribution, abundance, and bycatch levels. In June 2006, NMFS and GCAK met with members of the pollock fleet and western Alaska subsistance user groups to describe these issues and begin working towards resolving these concerns. To address the immediate need of implementing a program to enable vessels to reduce their salmon bycatch during directed fishing for pollock, and to explore whether promulgating regulations that include components of the salmon bycatch reduction ICA would be unworkable for the fleet, the applicants were granted an EFP for the time period August 2, 2006, through November 1, 2006. The 2006 EFP exempted CDQ and non-CDQ pollock vessels operating under a salmon bycatch reduction ICA from closures of the salmon savings areas. The EFP allowed the participants to conduct operations under the salmon bycatch reduction EFP during the “B” season. Under the conditions of the 2006 EFP, the applicants are scheduled to present initial and final results at the December 2006 and February 2007 Council meetings, respectively. Preliminary indications are that salmon bycatch was reduced under the EFP, although it is not known whether these reductions are due to decreases or movements in overall salmon biomass. On October 16, 2006, NMFS received an EFP application that would continue to evaluate the goals described in the 2006 EFP. However, because chum salmon is the predominant bycatch problem during the “B” season, and Chinook salmon bycatch is the predominant bycatch problem during the “A” season, the applicants expect to be able to evaluate these goals relative to Chinook salmon bycatch in the early part of 2007. The EFP is also expected to provide a basis for potential future changes to the ICA to decrease salmon bycatch. Pending implementation of Amendment 84, this information could also provide the basis for rulemaking to adjust ICA provisions that would be established in regulations. Description of Salmon Bycatch Reduction ICA and Associated EFP The salmon bycatch reduction ICA is intended to reduce salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fisheries. The ICA would be incorporated into existing cooperative agreements among participants in the AFA fishery and include CDQ groups and western Alaska community organizations as well as AFA cooperatives. Parties to the ICA include the following AFA cooperatives: Pollock Conservation Cooperative, the High Seas Catchers Cooperative, the Mothership Fleet Cooperative, the Inshore Cooperatives (Akutan Catcher Vessel Association, Arctic Enterprise Association, Northern Victor Fleet Cooperative, Peter Pan Fleet Cooperative, Unalaska Fleet Cooperative, UniSea Fleet Cooperative, and Westward Fleet Cooperative) and all six CDQ groups. Additionally, two western Alaskan groups who have an interest in the sustainability of salmon resources would be parties in the ICA. All these groups have participated in meetings to develop the ICA and have a compliance responsibility in the agreement. The purpose of the ICA is to use real-time salmon bycatch information to avoid unacceptably high incidental catch rates of chum and Chinook salmon. The ICA is a private, contractual agreement among the parties. All parties to the ICA have agreed to abide by all tenants of the contract and the structure of the ICA and to retain the services of a private contractor to gather and analyze data, monitor the fleet, and report necessary bycatch information to the parties of the ICA. The ICA requires that the bycatch rate of a participating cooperative be compared to a pre-determined bycatch rate (base rate). All ICA provisions for fleet bycatch avoidance behavior, closures, and enforcement are based on the ratio of the cooperative's actual salmon bycatch rate to the base rate. An ICA cooperative is assigned to one of three tiers based on its salmon bycatch rate relative to the base rate. Higher tiers correspond to higher salmon bycatch rates. Tier assignments determine access privileges to specific areas. A cooperative assigned to a high tier is restricted from fishing in a relatively larger geographic area to avoid unacceptably high salmon bycatch areas. A cooperative assigned to a low tier based on fishing behavior that results in relatively low salmon bycatch rates is granted access to a wider range of fishing areas. The private contractor tracks salmon bycatch rates for each cooperative. A participating cooperative is assigned to a tier each week based on its salmon bycatch rate for the previous week. Thus, vessels have incentives to avoid fishing behavior that results in high salmon bycatch rates. Any of the parties to the ICA may bring suit against another party for breaching the contract. A vessel that enters an area closed to it based on its tier assignment may be assessed a monetary penalty. The ICA contains a penalty schedule for violating these closures. The project would begin January 20, 2007, and continue until November 1, 2007. Fishing would occur in the Bering Sea subarea during the normal fishing seasons described in regulation at § 679.23. Fishing would occur within the annual specified prohibited species catch limits and total allowable catch for pollock. No additional fish would be allocated for fishing under this EFP. Exemptions to regulations granted under the EFP would apply to all directed Bering Sea pollock fisheries, including participants in the CDQ program who participate in the ICA. The proposed EFP exempts vessels listed in the application from chum and Chinook salmon savings area closures. These exemptions are necessary to allow the permit holder to effectively test the feasibility the ICA to reduce salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea. As noted above, the analysis prepared for this action indicates that some geographic areas may present additional opportunities to reduce salmon bycatch, but are otherwise closed to fishing during certain times of the year. The EFP would exempt the applicant from fishing closures related to salmon bycatch implemented under §§ 679.21 and 679.22. Additionally, vessels listed on the application would be exempt from salmon bycatch related prohibitions against fishing described in § 679.7(c)(2). Vessels would still be subject to all other requirements described in 50 CFR part 679, including monitoring and observer coverage requirements described in §§ 679.28 and 679.50. The applicant would be required to report to NMFS and the Council at the December 2007 amd February 2008 meetings the findings of this study. Findings will include how well the project met the goals and objectives described above, and the number of violations of the ICA, the nature of those violations, and the penalty imposed, if any, against the violating entity. In accordance with § 600.745(b) and § 679.6, NMFS has determined that the proposal warrants consideration and has initiated consultation with the Council. The Council will consider the EFP application during its meeting in Anchorage, Alaska from December 4-12, 2006. The applicants have been invited to appear in support of the application. Interested persons may comment on the application at the Council meeting during public testimony. Information regarding the December 2006 Council meeting is available at the Council's website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/council.htm* . Copies of the application and EA are available for review from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: November 15, 2006. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-19530 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 051017270-5339-02; I.D. 093005B] Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery; 2007 Fishing Quotas for Atlantic Surfclams and Ocean Quahogs AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NMFS is announcing that the quotas for the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries for 2007 remain status quo. Regulations governing these fisheries require NMFS to notify the public of the allowable harvest levels for Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs from the Exclusive Economic Zone in the **Federal Register** if the previous year's quota specifications remain unchanged. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tobey Curtis, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9273. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries
(FMP)requires that NMFS issue notification in the Federal Register of the upcoming year's quota, even in cases where the quota remains unchanged from the previous year. At its June 2006 meeting, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council voted that no action be taken to change the quota specifications for Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs for the 2007 fishing year (January 1 through December 31, 2007), and recommended maintaining the 2005 and 2006 quota levels of 3.4 million bu (181 million L) for Atlantic surfclams, 5.333 million bu (284 million L) for ocean quahogs, and 100,000 Maine bu (3.524 million L) for Maine ocean quahogs, as announced in the **Federal Register** on December 28, 2005 (70 FR 76715). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: November 15, 2006. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-19586 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 110606D] Marine Mammals; File Nos. 782-1719, 1071-1770 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit amendments. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS, National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML), 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle, WA 98102 has been issued an amendment to scientific research Permit No. 782-1719-03 and that The Dolphin Institute (Adam A. Pack, Ph.D., Principal Investigator), 420 Ward Avenue, Suite 212, Honolulu, HI 96814 has been issued an amendment to scientific research Permit No. 1071-1770-01. ADDRESSES: The amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Hapeman or Carrie Hubard, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 17, 2005 and March 1, 2005, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 8076) and (70 FR 9928), respectively, that requests to take marine mammals for scientific research had been submitted by the above-named institutions. The requested amendments have been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226). Permit No. 782-1719-04, issued to NMML (John Bengtson, Principal Investigator), allows takes of all species of cetaceans under NMFS jurisdiction during stock assessment activities throughout U.S. territorial waters and the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean, Southern Ocean, Arctic Ocean, and the territorial waters of Mexico (Gulf of California only), Canada, Russia, Japan, and the Philippines. This permit has been amended to increase the number of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) approached during aerial surveys to 11,000, biopsy sampled to 100, and tagged to 25 in the North Pacific and Arctic Oceans. The amendment also permits the Holder to conduct limited biopsy sampling of several species of large whale calves less than six months of age (with the exception of neonates) and attending females. The amended permit expires June 30, 2009. Permit No. 1071-1770-02 issued to Dr. Adam Pack of The Dolphin Institute allows takes of non-listed cetaceans and humpback whales ( *Megaptera novaeangliae* ) in the Eastern, Western, and Central North Pacific Ocean. The permit has been amended to allow research of blue whales ( *Balaenoptera musculus* ), sperm whales ( *Physeter macrocephalus* ), and fin whales ( *Balaenoptera physalus* ). The amended permit is valid until August 31, 2010. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), an environmental assessment was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities. After a Finding of No Significant Impact, the determination was made that it was not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement. Issuance of these amended permits, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such amendments:
(1)were applied for in good faith;
(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and
(3)are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Documents may be reviewed in the following locations: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426; Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907)586-7221; fax (907)586-7249; Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018; and Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)944-2280; fax (808)973-2941. Dated: November 14, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-19589 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP)Product Development Committee
(CPDC)for Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.3; Meeting AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. SUMMARY: The Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP)Product Development Committee for Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.3 (CPDC—S&A 5.3) was established by Charter on October 12, 2006. CPDC—S&A 5.3 is the Federal Advisory Committee charged with responsibility to develop a draft Synthesis and Assessment Product that addresses CCSP Topic 5.3: “Decision-Support Experiments and Evaluations Using Seasonal to Interannual Forecasts and Observational Data”. *Time and Date:* The meeting will be held Monday, December 11, 2006 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. This time and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Refer to the Web page *http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./ccsp/53.jsp* for the most up-to-date meeting agenda. *Place:* The meeting will be held via teleconference. Please contact Dr. Nancy Beller-Simms for further information (contact information follows). *Status:* The meeting will be open to public participation with a 30-minute public comment period on December 11 from 12:30-1 p.m. (times are dependent on number of participants; check Web site to confirm this time). In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five
(5)minutes. Written comments (at least 35 copies) should be received by the CPDC—S&A 5.3 Designated Federal Official by December 5, 2006 to provide sufficient time for review. Written comments received after that date will be distributed to the CPDC—S&A 5.3, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. *Matters to Be Considered:* The meeting will include, but not be limited to, the following topics:
(1)Discussion of procedures for completion of the first draft of the Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.3;
(2)Discussion of plans for completion and submission of future drafts and procedures;
(3)Discussion of a stakeholder workshop to be held in early January. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Nancy Beller-Simms, Designated Federal Official, CPDC—S&A 5.3 (NOAA Climate Program Office, 1315 East West Highway, Room 12221, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Phone: 301-734-1200, Fax: 301-713-0515, E-mail: *Nancy.Beller-Simms@noaa.gov* ) or visit the Web site at *http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./ccsp/53.jsp* . Dated: November 14, 2006. Mark E. Brown, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19515 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 111506B] Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Trawl Survey Advisory Panel, composed of representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), and several independent scientific researchers, will hold a public meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, December 11, 2006, from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Tuesday, December 12, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza, Two Harmon Plaza, Secaucus, NJ 07094, telephone:
(201)348-6900. *Council address* : Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904, telephone:
(302)674-2331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; telephone:
(302)674-2331, extension 19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to review the status of the new research vessel FSV Henry B. Bigelow and evaluate survey protocols for the new survey. Special Accommodations The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office,
(302)674-2331 extension 18, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: November 15, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-19531 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 111406H] North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a council workshop. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a workshop on potential gear modification regulations as a part of the analysis for the Bering Sea Habitat Conservation analysis. DATES: The workshop will be held on Thursday, December 7, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Hilton Hotel, 500 West 3rd Avenue, in the Dillingham/Katmai Room, Anchorage, AK. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Coon, North Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the workshop will be to discuss practical issues surrounding potential requirements for trawl sweeps in Bering Sea bottom trawl fisheries. Bottom trawl gear modifications are being considered as an alternative to reduce the impacts of fishing on benthic habitat in the Bering Sea. Research has indicated that adding discs or rollers to the sweep reduces bottom contact without substantially reducing catch rates of target species. Details of a gear requirement, such as disc size, composition, spacing, attachment, and enforcement have not yet been determined. While testimony before the Council and its committees will be the venue to address whether such regulations should be pursued, this workshop provides a venue to gather practical information, identify issues relative to enforcement and implementation of potential regulations, and identify workable solutions. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen,
(907)271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: November 15, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-19525 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 111406G] North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will hold public meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held on December 4, 2006 through December 12, 2006. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 500 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, AK. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Bendixen, Council staff; telephone:
(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, December 6, continuing through December 12, 2006. The Council's Advisory Panel
(AP)will begin at 8 a.m., Monday, December 4 and continue through Saturday December 9. The Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)will begin at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, December 6 and continue through Friday December 8, 2006. The Enforcement Committee will meet Tuesday, December 5, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, in the Birch/Willow Room. All meetings are open to the public, except executive sessions. *Council Plenary Session* : The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified. 1. Reports a. Executive Director's Report b. NMFS Management Report (including Resource Access Management Division crab management report) c. North Pacific Research Board Report d. Enforcement Report e. U.S. Coast Guard Report f. Alaska Department of Fish & Game Report (including review of halibut subsistence survey report) g. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report h. Department of State Report i. Protected Species Report (including Marine Mammal Protected Act List of Fisheries for 2007, Adak area pollock study, update on consultation, SSC review of ranking tool) 2. Charter Halibut Management: Status report on 2005 Guideline Harvest Levels
(GHLs)and committee report; review discussion paper on 5-fish limit, and committee report and action as necessary; review discussion paper on Halibut Act proposed amendment and committee report, and action as necessary; review separate accountability issue and committee report and action as necessary; review moratorium discussion paper and committee report; review discussion paper on allocations/shares and committee report and action as necessary; review discussion paper on allocations/shares and committee report and action as necessary. 3. Maximum Retainable Amounts
(MRA)Adjustments: Final action on amendment. 4. Trawl License Limitation Program Recency: Preliminary review of analysis and direction as necessary. 5. Gulf of Alaska
(GOA)Rationalization: Review analysis and refine alternatives. 6. Seabird Interactions: Initial review of Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR). 7. Groundfish Management: Receive report on summary of comments on Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); review GOA Stock Assessment Fishery Evaluation Report (SAFE), adopt final harvest specifications for 2007/08; review Bering Sea Aleutian Islands (BS/AI) SAFE, adopt final harvest specifications for 2007/08; review Adak Experimental Fishing Permit (EFP). 8. Prohibited species bycatch: Final action on Vessel Incentive Program
(VIP)repeal amendment package; Review EFP for Salmon Bycatch. 9. Bering Sea Habitat Conservation: Receive report on gear research and finalize alternatives for analysis (T). 10. Staff Tasking: Review Committees and tasking and take action as necessary; review progress on the Arctic management, and action as necessary; refine Programmatic Environmental Impact statement management policy workplan. 11. Other Business The SSC agenda will include the following issues: a. North Pacific Research Board report b. Protected Species c. Charter Halibut moratorium d. Trawl LLP Recency e. Seabird Interactions f. Groundfish Management g. EFP Review h. Bering Sea Habitat Conservation i. BS/AI Crab Management The Advisory Panel will address the same agenda issues as the Council. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at
(907)271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: November 15, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-19526 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 111406E] Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Groundfish Management Team
(GMT)will hold a work session via conference call, which is open to the public. DATES: The GMT will meet via conference call on Monday, December 4, 2006, from 1 p.m. until business is completed. ADDRESSES: A public listening station will be available at the following location: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384. *Council address* : Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Laura Bozzi, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(503)820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the GMT work session is to discuss the Trawl Individual Quota alternatives under development by the Council. Specifically, the GMT will continue to develop statements that address the management feasibility of particular aspects of the proposed alternatives. No management actions will be decided by the GMT on these issues. The GMT's statements will be provided to facilitate decision-making at the Council's Groundfish Allocation Committee
(GAC)December 12-14, 2006 meeting, as well as to the Council and its advisory bodies at a later point. Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at
(503)820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: November 15, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-19524 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No.: PTO-P-2006-0034] Business Size Standard for Purposes of United States Patent and Trademark Office Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Patent-Related Regulations AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Regulatory Flexibility Act permits an agency head to establish, for purposes of Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis and certification, one or more definitions of “small business concern” that are appropriate to the activities of the agency. Pursuant to this authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is establishing the Small Business Administration
(SBA)business size standard for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees as the size standard for conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina T. Donnell, Senior Petitions Attorney, Office of Petitions, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at
(571)272-3211, by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450, or by facsimile to
(571)273-7735, marked to the attention of Christina T. Donnell. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The USPTO is in this notice establishing the SBA business size standard for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees as the size standard for conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations. The USPTO is not changing or proposing to change the definition of small entity for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees. The patent statute provides that “[f]ees charged under [35 U.S.C. 41](a),
(b)and (d)(1) shall be reduced by 50 percent with respect to their application to any small business concern as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act, and to any independent inventor or nonprofit organization as defined in regulations issued by the Director.” 35 U.S.C. 41(h)(1). The SBA defines a small business concern for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees as one: “(a) Whose number of employees, including affiliates, does not exceed 500 persons; and
(b)Which has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed (and is under no obligation to do so) any rights in the invention to any person who made it and could not be classified as an independent inventor, or to any concern which would not qualify as a non-profit organization or a small business concern under this section.” 13 CFR 121.802. The USPTO uses the SBA business size standard for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees in 13 CFR 121.802 as the size standard when conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations. *See* *e.g.* , *Changes To Support Implementation of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 21st Century Strategic Plan* , 69 FR 56481, 56530 (Sept. 21, 2004) (discussion indicating that small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are considered a subset of the small entities for purposes of paying reduced patent fees). The USPTO has no business need (other than to conduct an analysis or make a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act) to collect information from patentees and patent applicants concerning whether they are a small business concern using the business size standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.201. Thus, the USPTO uses the SBA business size standard set forth in 13 CFR 121.802 as its size standard when conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act to avoid the need to gather data from patentees and patent applicants as to whether they are a small business concern as described in 13 CFR 121.201. *Comments and Responses:* Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the USPTO consulted with SBA Advocacy and published a request for comments on the establishment of a business size standard (the business size standard set forth in 13 CFR 121.802 for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees) for the purpose of USPTO Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for patent-related regulations. *See Size Standard for Purposes of United States Patent and Trademark Office Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Patent-Related Regulations* , 71 FR 38388 (July 6, 2006), 1309 *Off. Gaz. Pat. Office* 37 (Aug. 1, 2006) (request for comments). SBA Advocacy convened a regulatory roundtable to discuss the USPTO's proposed business size standard (attended by USPTO representatives) on July 19, 2006, and the USPTO received seven written comments (from SBA Advocacy, the Professional Inventors Alliance, and five individuals) in response to the request for comments. The comments and responses to the comments follow: *Comment 1:* SBA Advocacy commented, in pertinent part, that: On July 19, 2006, Advocacy convened a regulatory roundtable to discuss the USPTO's proposed size standard. Participants at the roundtable included industry personnel representing the interests of small businesses and independent inventors, USPTO personnel, representatives from the SBA Office of Size Standards, and Advocacy. During the roundtable, small entity representatives expressed reservations about the proposed size standard. They indicated that the standard would exclude a significant number of small entities. Further, they were concerned that the standard would not provide an accurate estimate of the number of small entities affected by the USPTO's regulations. Currently, patent applicants must claim small entity status by checking a box on their patent application. However, small entity representatives informed Advocacy that entities often choose not to claim small entity status for a variety of reasons. USPTO data systems track the number of patent applications that claim small entity status. The agency then uses the numbers to estimate the number of small entities affected by its rulemakings. The agency does not collect data on or count the specific entities that are submitting a patent application. As a result, the data collected by the USPTO does not provide an accurate estimate of the number of small entities affected by the agency's rules. Since the proposed size standard only tabulates the number of applicants claiming small entity status, and not actual small entities, Advocacy does not believe that it is the appropriate size standard for [Regulatory Flexibility Act] purposes. Advocacy appreciates the USPTO's challenge in identifying an appropriate size standard for [Regulatory Flexibility Act] purposes. We agree with the agency's decision to request public comment on the proposed size standard. However, we urge the USPTO not to adopt a size standard that would adversely affect small entities. The proposed standard will not facilitate the USPTO's compliance with the [Regulatory Flexibility Act] since it will not adequately estimate the small entities affected by the agency's regulations. Advocacy suggests that the agency continue to work with our office to identify a more appropriate standard after reviewing public comments on the proposal. Another individual comment also objected to the use of the SBA business size standard in 13 CFR 121.802 as the size standard when conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations. The comment asserted that it was not unusual for a small business concern to file as a large entity to avoid the possibility of the patent being subsequently invalidated because of an improper assertion of small entity status. Additionally, the comment asserted that the number of small business concerns affected by the USPTO's rule making is much greater than the number of small entity applicants assessed by the USPTO. Alternatively, several individual comments supported the USPTO's definition of small business concern for Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes. *Response:* The USPTO does not consider the arguments that it significantly undercounts the number of small entities affected by its rule makings to be persuasive. On July 19, 2006, representatives from the USPTO attended SBA Advocacy's roundtable and met with representatives from the SBA, SBA Advocacy, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the Association for Competitive Technology, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, and the United Inventors Association. The USPTO received anecdotal feedback at the SBA Advocacy roundtable that the USPTO significantly undercounts the number of small entities affected by its rule makings when the USPTO relies upon the small entity data as contained in the USPTO's Patent Application Locating and Monitoring
(PALM)system. The USPTO, however, has not been provided with any data or other specific information to substantiate this anecdotal information. In addition, none of the groups whose representatives were present at the SBA Advocacy roundtable (except for SBA Advocacy) submitted a comment in response to the USPTO's request for comments on the USPTO's definition of small business concern for Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes. In support of the contention that the small entity data in PALM significantly undercounts the number of small entities, the representatives at the SBA Advocacy roundtable and the comments asserted that small entities routinely decline to claim small entity status because:
(1)Applicants must claim small entity status by checking a box on a particular USPTO form;
(2)small entities consider the fifty percent reduction in patent fees negligible relative to the overall cost of obtaining a patent; and
(3)there are negative legal consequences if small entity status is claimed or is claimed improperly. The small entity data contained in the PALM system is collected from patent applicants on the basis of whether the applicant claims small entity status for the purpose of paying patent fees. Section 4502(b) of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999
(AIPA)charged the Government Accountability Office
(GAO)with conducting a study of the impact of the AIPA's eighteen-month publication provisions, which included a study of any correlation of the status of the applicant (small entity or non-small entity) and the eighteen-month publication of applications. *See* Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-552-53 (1999). The GAO analyzed the data in the USPTO's PALM system and deemed it sufficiently reliable for purposes of conducting the study mandated by the AIPA. *See Information about the Publication Provisions of the American Inventors Protection Act* , GAO-04-603 at 14-15 (2004). The USPTO representatives indicated at the SBA Advocacy roundtable that to collect small entity data with the reliability being urged by SBA Advocacy (or of greater reliability than is currently contained in the USPTO's PALM system) would compel the USPTO to require all patent applicants to affirmatively state whether they are or are not a small entity. No party present at the SBA Advocacy roundtable advocated the adoption of such a requirement. In addition, the SBA Advocacy comment does not suggest any viable alternative to the USPTO's reliance upon the data on small entities contained in the USPTO's PALM system for Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis or certification purposes. Therefore, the USPTO considers the data on small entities in the USPTO's PALM system to be sufficiently reliable (especially in light of the absence of any viable preferable alternatives) for use in conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations. The statement that patent applicants must claim small entity status by checking a box on a particular USPTO form is not correct. The USPTO revised 37 CFR 1.27 in September of 2000 to provide that patent applicants may claim small entity status by:
(1)Providing a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status (37 CFR 1.27(c)(1)); or
(2)paying the basic filing or basic national fee in the small entity amount (37 CFR 1.27(c)(3)). *See Changes to Implement the Patent Business Goals* , 65 FR 64603, 54609-15, 54659-61 (Sept. 8, 2000) (final rule). The USPTO includes a box next to a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status on its application transmittal form, which patent applicants may use to claim small entity status when filing a patent application (37 CFR 1.27(c)(1)). The USPTO, however, does not require applicants to check this box on the application transmittal form (or even use the application transmittal form) to claim small entity status. Therefore, the USPTO does not believe that small entities routinely decline to claim small entity status due to the USPTO's requirements for establishing small entity status. The argument that small entities consider the fifty percent reduction in patent fees to be negligible is likewise unpersuasive. As introduced and reported out of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003 did not contain a small entity reduction for the patent search fee. *See The United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003* , H.R. 1561, 109th Cong., § 2 (2003). During the floor debate on the United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act, the following amendments were necessary to address small entity concerns and secure passage of this legislation by the House of Representatives:
(1)A fifty percent reduction in the patent search fee for small entities;
(2)a seventy-five percent reduction in the patent filing fee for small entities who file electronically; and
(3)a study of the effects of patent fees on the ability of small entities to file patent applications. *See United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2004* , 150 Cong. Rec. H793, H803 (daily ed. Mar. 3, 2004) (floor debate and passage of United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2004 by the House of Representatives). The USPTO does not believe that small entities would have sought these changes to the United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2004 if a substantial number of small entities considered the fifty percent reduction in patent fees to be negligible. The argument concerning negative legal consequences if small entity status is claimed or is claimed improperly is similarly not persuasive. The rules of practice provide that: “[i]f status as a small entity is established in good faith, and fees as a small entity are paid in good faith, in any application or patent, and it is later discovered that such status as a small entity was established in error, or that through error the Office was not notified of a loss of entitlement to small entity status as required by § 1.27(g)(2), the error will be excused upon compliance with the [requirements of 37 CFR 1.28(c)].” 37 CFR 1.28(c). In the mid-1990s, there were District Court decisions in which a patentee faced negative legal consequences for erroneously or improperly claiming small entity status. *See Haden Schweitzer Corp.* v. *Arthur B. Myr Industries, Inc.* , 901 F. Supp. 1235, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1020 (E.D. Mich. 1995) (failure to pay maintenance fee in the correct amount results in intervening rights under 35 U.S.C. 41(c)(2)); and
(2)*DH Technology, Inc.* v. *Synergstex International, Inc.* , 937 F. Supp. 902, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1754 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (failure to timely pay issue fee in the correct amount results in patent lapse under 35 U.S.C. 151); *but see Jewish Hospital of St. Louis* v. *Idexx Laboratories* , 951 F. Supp 1, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1720 (D. Me. 1996) (correction of improper small entity fee payment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.28 does not result in patent lapse). In light of the uncertainty that existed in the mid-1990s concerning the consequences of erroneously claiming small entity status, the Office advised applicants and patentees at that time that they could avoid this uncertainty by not claiming small entity status unless it is absolutely certain that the applicant or patentee is entitled to small entity status ( *i.e.* , resolving any doubt, uncertainty, or lack of information in favor of payment of the full fee). *See Changes to Patent Practice and Procedure* , 62 FR 53131, 53135 (Oct. 10, 1997); *see also DH Technology* , 937 F. Supp. at 910, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1761 (“where there is the slightest doubt about an applicant's entitlement to claim small entity status, the applicant would be foolish not to pay the full * * * fee”). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), however, reversed the District Court's decision in *DH Technology* and held that an applicant may correct an erroneous payment of patent fees in the small entity amount under 37 CFR 1.28 without penalty, such as patent lapse, as long as small entity status was established in good faith and the small entity fees were paid in good faith. *See DH Tech.* v. *Synergystex Int'l* , 154 F.3d 1333, 1343, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865, 1872 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, subsequent to the Federal Circuit's decision in *DH Technology* , the only patent applicants or patentees who face negative legal consequences from claiming or erroneously claiming small entity status are those applicants who have no basis for making a good faith claim to small entity status. Therefore, the USPTO does not believe that a significant number of small entities currently decline to claim small entity status to avoid negative legal consequences ( *i.e.* , the patent being invalidated) due to the applicant claiming or erroneously claiming small entity status. Finally, no party to the SBA Advocacy roundtable or other comment suggested that the USPTO should use the business size standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.201 for purposes of conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations. *Comment 2:* One comment requested clarification as to whether a license to a non-small entity that arises only impliedly negates small entity status for an applicant or patentee. The comment stated that the situation of an implied license to a non-small entity frequently occurs when the invention is embodied in software, and the software is mass-marketed under a standard shrink-wrap license. The comment asserted that a shrink-wrap agreement typically grants a “license” without indicating the intellectual property rights for which the “license” is granted. The comment contended that frequently the licensee cannot use the software without using the patented invention and that the law often implies a license under these circumstances. Additionally, the comment asserted that the current definition of small business concern excludes any small entity that licensed the invention to a non-small entity; however, the definition does not limit the exclusion to only those small business concerns that explicitly licensed the invention. Therefore, the comment suggested that the USPTO adopt the following language: “(b) which has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or explicitly licensed (and is under no obligation to do so) any rights in the invention * * * .” Lastly, the comment averred that some practitioners do not claim small entity status for software-embodied inventions, even though the applicant or patentee is entitled to the benefit of small entity status, because the applicant or patentee is usually unaware if or when the mass-market software production is licensed by a non-small entity. *Response:* The scope of the term “license” in the context of entitlement to small entity status was previously discussed in the SBA rule making to define small entity for purposes of a reduction in patent fees for such a small entity. Specifically, the SBA responded as follows: Two comments raised questions about the intended scope of the term “license.” It was suggested that clarification is needed as to what is included within the scope of the term. One comment suggested that, “[a]t the very least, the record should reflect that the definition is not intended to reach implied licenses to use and resell patented articles purchased from a small business.” The comment is correct insofar as it suggests that such “implied licenses” are not intended to be included within the scope of the term. Likewise, an order by the applicant to a firm to build a proto-type machine or product for the applicant's own use is not considered to constitute a license for purposes of the definition. Another suggestion was that the regulation be reworded to deny small business status where revenue above a certain dollar amount was received from licensing rights under the invention to a concern which could not qualify as a small entity. It was also suggested that the term “exclusive license of any of the rights in the invention” be used instead of the term “license.” The latter two suggestions have not been adopted. Adoption of these suggestions would cause the regulation to become more complicated, and does not appear necessary to aid small concerns in accord with the purposes of the legislation. In addition, it could substantially broaden the number of concerns which could qualify with a resulting excessive loss of revenue to the Patent and Trademark Office. It is not seen likely that the restriction on licensing would unduly or adversely affect the ability of the small business concern to participate in the patent system. *Definition of Small Business for Paying Reduced Patent Fees Under Title 35, United States Code,* 47 FR 43272 (Sept. 30, 1982) (final rule). The USPTO did not propose to change the definition of a small business concern for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees. Rather, the USPTO was inviting public comment on the establishment of the SBA business size standard in 13 CFR 121.802 as the size standard when conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations. Therefore, the suggested change is not adopted. *Comment 3:* One comment suggested that part
(b)of the SBA's definition of a small business concern, specifying an entity “which has not assigned, granted, conveyed or licensed * * * any rights in the invention” to a large entity should be deleted from the definition as being inappropriate. The comment stated that a license or other agreement between a small entity and a large entity does not typically result in substantial income to the small entity. The comment further asserted that in most cases the small entity retains the financial responsibility to pay the patent prosecution and maintenance fees, without any additional income from the large entity. The comment contended that if the license or other agreement is later terminated, the termination agreement often allows the large entity to retain some rights without further payment. Additionally, the termination agreement may be so complex that the small entity may not be able to overcome a charge of inequitable conduct by a third party. Alternatively, one of the comments stated that the adopted size standard does not unfairly burden small entities because a large entity typically pays the cost of patent prosecution when a small entity licenses its technology to the large entity. *Response:* 13 CFR 121.802 is the substantive provision for determining whether an entity is a small business concern for purposes of paying reduced patent fees. The USPTO did not propose to change the definition of a small business concern for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees. Rather, the USPTO was inviting public comment on the establishment of the SBA business size standard in 13 CFR 121.802 as the size standard when conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations. Moreover, the suggestion was previously considered and rejected in the rule making to implement the reduction in patent fees for small entities. Specifically, a past comment suggested that 37 CFR 1.27 should be corrected to indicate that a small business concern would be entitled to pay reduced patent fees even though the small business concern may grant a non-exclusive or an exclusive license to a non-small entity. The USPTO responded as follows: Section 1.27 requires that the concern qualify as a small business concern as defined in § 1.9(d). Section 1.9(d) defines a small business concern by incorporating 13 CFR 121.3-18, which in turn defines a small business concern as one not exceeding a particular size “which has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed, and is under no obligation under contract or law to assign, grant, convey or license, any rights in the invention to any person who could not be classified as an independent inventor if that person had made the invention, or to any concern which would not qualify as a small business concern or a nonprofit organization under this section.” The intent of both 13 CFR 121.3-18 and 37 CFR 1.9(d) and 1.27(c) is to limit the payment of reduced fees under section 41(a) and
(b)of Title 35, United States Code, to those situations in which all of the rights in the invention are owned by small entities, i.e., independent inventors, small business concerns, or nonprofit organizations. To do otherwise would be clearly contrary to the intended purpose of the legislation which contains no indication that fees are to be reduced in circumstances where rights are owned by non-small entities. Adopting the suggestion might, for example, permit a non-small entity to transfer patent rights to a small business concern which would pay the reduced fees and grant an exclusive license to the non-small entity. *Revision of Patent and Trademark Fees,* 47 FR 43273 (Sept. 30, 1982) (final rule). Therefore, the suggested change is not adopted. *Comment 4:* One comment noted an error in the following text: “The SBA Advocacy, however, has questioned whether the USPTO's size standard is under-inclusive because it excludes any business concern that has assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed (and is under no obligation to do so).” The comment suggested the following correction: “The SBA Advocacy, however, has questioned whether the USPTO's size standard is under-inclusive because it excludes any business concern that has assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed (or is under an obligation to do so).” *Response:* The USPTO notes that the text at issue should have read: “The SBA Advocacy, however, has questioned whether the USPTO's size standard is under-inclusive because it excludes any business concern that has assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed (or is under an obligation to do so) any rights in the invention to any person who made it and could not be classified as an independent inventor, or to any concern which would not qualify as a non-profit organization or a small business concern under [13 CFR 1.802].” *Establishment of a Definition of “Small Business Concern” for Purposes of the USPTO Conducting an Analysis or Making a Certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for Patent-Related Regulations:* The Regulatory Flexibility Act permits an agency head to establish, for purposes of Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis and certification, one or more definitions of “small business concern” that are appropriate to the activities of the agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and opportunity for public comment. *See* 5 U.S.C. 601(3) and 13 CFR 121.903(c). The USPTO consulted with SBA Advocacy and published a request for comments on the establishment of a business size standard (the SBA business size standard set forth in 13 CFR 121.802 for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees) for USPTO Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for patent-related regulations. *See Size Standard for Purposes of United States Patent and Trademark Office Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Patent-Related Regulations,* 71 FR at 38388-89, 1309 *Off. Gaz. Pat. Office* at 37-38. Therefore, the USPTO is establishing the following definition of small business concern for purposes of the USPTO conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations: A small business concern for Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes for patent-related regulations is a business or other concern that:
(1)Meets the SBA's definition of a “business concern or concern” set forth in 13 CFR 121.105; and
(2)meets the size standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.802 for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees, namely, an entity:
(a)Whose number of employees, including affiliates, does not exceed 500 persons; and
(b)which has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed (and is under no obligation to do so) any rights in the invention to any person who made it and could not be classified as an independent inventor, or to any concern which would not qualify as a non-profit organization or a small business concern under this definition. Dated: November 9, 2006. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E6-19573 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Office of the Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)/TRICARE Management Activity AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of a TRICARE demonstration project for the State of Alaska SUMMARY: This notice is to advise interested parties of a Military Health System
(MHS)demonstration project entitled TRICARE Provider Reimbursement Demonstration Project for the State of Alaska. The delivery of health care services in the State of Alaska represents a unique situation that cannot be addressed fully by strictly applying the same reimbursement rules that apply to TRICARE programs in the other 49 states without some modification. Typically, provider payments are the same as under Medicare, unless the Department has taken specific action to increase payment rates in response to a particular, severe access problem in a location. Under this demonstration, payment rates for physicians and other non-institutional individual professional providers in the State of Alaska will be set at a rate higher than the Medicare rate. The demonstration project will test the effect of this change on provider participation in TRICARE, beneficiary access to care, cost of health care services, military medical readiness, morale and welfare. In particular, the demonstration will test whether the increased costs of provider payments are offset in whole or part by savings in travel costs, lost duty time, and other factors. This demonstration will be conducted under statutory authority provided in 10 U.S.C. 1092. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2007. This demonstration will remain in effect for a period of 3 years. ADDRESSES: TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), TRICARE Operations Directorate, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810, Falls Church, VA 22041-3206. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CAPT Cynthia DiLorenzo, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)—TRICARE Management Activity, telephone
(619)236-5304. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background Alaska is a land of extremes and contradictions. It is the largest state in the United States, containing one-fifth of all United States land, yet is one of the least populated. It boasts both the highest mountain in North America and the longest coastline of any state. There are just a few major roads providing residents the ability to travel to the major cities in the State. Other means of transportation are by boat or plane. which places severe hardships on beneficiaries attempting to access needed health care services. It has geography characterized by harsh ice islands and desert tundra. Alaska's citizens are no less diverse. Alaska's population is just under 627,000. Of these, approximately 71,000 are Military Health System
(MHS)beneficiaries. More than half of these beneficiaries reside in south-central Alaska in the State's largest city—Anchorage. Alaska's military treatment facilities
(MTFs)meet a large percentage of Alaska's beneficiary health care needs. Those remaining are referred to local civilian providers or to the lower 48 states. Access to health care services in Alaska is often severely limited by the overall dearth of providers, their reluctance to accept TRICARE payment rates, transportation issues, and other factors. In response TRICARE has taken steps to increase payment rates, as detailed below. B. Past Efforts to Address Access Issues In 2000, TRICARE created a new payment locality encompassing all of Alaska except Anchorage, and increased payment rates by 28 percent in the new locality. In 2004, pursuant to specific Congressional action, Medicare increased its payment rates in Alaska by 50 percent, and TRICARE rates were increased to match the new Medicare rates. The higher Medicare rates continued though the end of 2005, when the special Congressional provision expired; the Medicare rates reverted to former levels. TRICARE rates reverted to their former level, 28 percent higher than Medicare rates. C. Other Payers in Alaska As noted, TRICARE payment rates in Alaska are 28 percent above Medicare rates. It is estimated that commercial rates in Alaska are about 70 percent above TRICARE rates. The Department of Veterans' Affairs purchases some health care services for Veterans in Alaska, using a specially developed rate schedule. Most rates are higher than TRICARE rates, and a few are lower; on average, the VA rates are approximately 35 percent higher than TRICARE rates. D. Current Status of Access Large numbers of providers in Alaska are considering no longer treating military beneficiaries owing to low payment rates. Over 70 providers or provider groups in a wide range of specialties are of concern, some of them the sole provider in Alaska for their specialty. The alternatives to local purchase of services for military officials are to transport patients to Seattle or another location for treatment, or to relocate scarce military medical assets to Alaska to provide services. The first is an expensive proposition that brings with it considerable lost duty time and other complications; the second approach is untenable in wartime, and as a practical matter medical practice in Alaska would not provide sufficient opportunity for military medical specialists to maintain their skills. Under a recent policy change, TRICARE limits its payment in cases where Medicare providers “opt out” of Medicare and enter into private contracts with Medicare patients. This may be problematic in Alaska, with the very small number of providers available. E. Description of Demonstration Project Under this demonstration, DoD will waive, for services provided in the State of Alaska, the provisions of 10 U.S.C. section 1079(h) that require TRICARE payments for physicians and other individual professional, non-institutional providers to be the same as under Medicare. Instead, TRICARE will adopt a rate that is 1.35 times the current TRICARE allowable rate. In addition, DoD will be the primary payer for services obtained from providers who have opted out of Medicare by Medicare-eligible uniformed services beneficiaries. This action will directly increase reimbursement levels for providers, and is expected to result in increased access to care for military beneficiaries; reduced travel to Seattle, accompanied by a reduction in lost duty days; and improved morale for military members and families as a result of increased access and reduced separation. F. Implementation The demonstration will go into effect on January 1, 2007. G. Evaluation An independent evaluation of the demonstration will be conducted. The evaluation will be designed to use a combination of administrative and survey measures of health care access to provide analyses and comment on the effectiveness of the demonstration in meeting its goal of improving beneficiary access to health care by maximizing the potential pool of health care providers in Alaska. Dated: November 14, 2006. L. M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E6-19553 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0011] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Preaward Survey Forms (Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408) AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0011). SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning preaward survey forms (Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408.) A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 71 FR 38867, July 10, 2006. No comments were received. The clearance currently expires on January 31, 2007. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before December 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Ms. Linda Nelson, Contract Policy Division, GSA,
(202)501-1900. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose To protect the Government's interest and to ensure timely delivery of items of the requisite quality, contracting officers, prior to award, must make an affirmative determination that the prospective contractor is responsible, *i.e.* , capable of performing the contract. Before making such a determination, the contracting officer must have in his possession or must obtain information sufficient to satisfy himself that the prospective contractor
(i)has adequate financial resources, or the ability to obtain such resources,
(ii)is able to comply with required delivery schedule,
(iii)has a satisfactory record of performance,
(iv)has a satisfactory record of integrity, and
(v)is otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under appropriate laws and regulations. If such information is not in the contracting officer's possession, it is obtained through a preaward survey conducted by the contract administration office responsible for the plant and/or the geographic area in which the plant is located. The necessary data is collected by contract administration personnel from available data or through plant visits, phone calls, and correspondence and entered on Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408 in detail commensurate with the dollar value and complexity of the procurement. B. Annual Reporting Burden Respondents: *5,478* . Responses Per Respondent: *1* . Total Responses: *5,478* . Hours Per Response: *20.8* . Total Burden Hours: *113,942* . *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone
(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0011, Preaward Survey Forms (Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408), in all correspondence. Dated: November 13, 2006. Ralph De Stefano, Director, Contract Policy Division. [FR Doc. 06-9268 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
CFR
18 references not yet in our index
  • 7 CFR 1942
  • 7 CFR 1942.307(b)
  • 7 CFR 1942.304
  • 7 CFR 1942.305
  • 7 CFR 1942.305(b)(3)
  • 7 CFR 16
  • 19 USC 81a-81u
  • 19 CFR 146
  • 50 CFR 679
  • 50 CFR 216
  • 50 CFR 222
  • Pub. L. 106-113
  • 901 F. Supp. 1235
  • 937 F. Supp. 902
  • 951 F. Supp. 1
  • 154 F.3d 1333
  • 13 CFR 121.3-18
  • 13 CFR 1.802
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 1932
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.305
U.S.C.§ 1801
U.S.C.§ 1361
U.S.C.§ 1531
U.S.C.§ 4321
U.S.C.§ 41
F. Supp.901 F. Supp. 1235
F. Supp.937 F. Supp. 902
F. Supp.951 F. Supp. 1
Cites 39 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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