Notices. Notice; receipt of application

8,568 words·~39 min read·/register/2007/05/03/07-2141

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

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-485-803] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Dena Crossland, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0195 or

(202)482-3362, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 29, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania, covering the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). The preliminary results for this review are currently due no later than May 3, 2007. Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results The deadline for the preliminary results of this administrative review is currently May 3, 2007. The Department determines that completion of the preliminary results within the statutory time period is not practicable. The Department issued a supplemental sales questionnaire to respondent Mittal Steel Galati S.A. (“MS Galati”) for clarification pertaining to the date of sale issue for respondent's U.S. sales on April 2, 2007, and the respondent submitted its supplemental questionnaire response on April 16, 2007. The Department requires additional time to review and analyze MS Galati's questionnaire response, and to issue additional supplemental sales questionnaires, if necessary. Therefore, given the additional time needed to conduct a complete analysis for this administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results by an additional 60 days to no later than July 2, 2007. The final results continue to be due no later than 120 days after publication of the notice of the preliminary results. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 27, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8478 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3207. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 2, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 5005 (February 2, 2007) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). On April 10, 2007, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (“Petitioners”) withdrew their request for an administrative review for the following twenty-two companies: Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd., Chiangmai Healthyproduct Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Xinsheng (or Xinyun) Shipping Agency Co., Ltd., Shanghai Xinyun International Transportation Co., Ltd., Apiarist Co., Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health Industry Co., Ltd., Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd., Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd., Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd., China Ocean Shipping Agency Beijing, Rich Shipping Company, M&H Shipping (Shanghai) Corporation, United Logistics Group Inc., Beijing World Trade Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Golden Dragon Group Corporation Ltd., Kunshan Xinrui Co., Ltd., Qingdao Aolan Trade Co., Ltd., Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd., Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd., Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd. Petitioners were the only party to request a review of the entries of subject merchandise exported by these companies. Partial Rescission Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within ninety days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. Because the Petitioners' withdrawal of requests for review was timely and no other party requested a review of the aforementioned companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with respect to Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd., Chiangmai Healthyproduct Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Xinsheng (or Xinyun) Shipping Agency Co., Ltd., Shanghai Xinyun International Transportation Co., Ltd., Apiarist Co., Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health Industry Co., Ltd., Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd., Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd., Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd., China Ocean Shipping Agency Beijing, Rich Shipping Company, M&H Shipping (Shanghai) Corporation, United Logistics Group Inc., Beijing World Trade Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Golden Dragon Group Corporation Ltd., Kunshan Xinrui Co., Ltd., Qingdao Aolan Trade Co., Ltd., Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd., Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd., Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd. Assessment Rates The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For those companies for which this review has been rescinded and which have a separate rate, antidumping duties 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)(2). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. For those companies for which this review has been rescinded but do not have a separate rate at this time (and thus remain part of the PRC-wide entity), the Department will issue assessment instructions upon the completion of this administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: April 26, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8479 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-817] Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury, or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0195, or

(202)482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 29, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review for, oil country tubular goods

(OCTG)from Mexico for the August 1, 2005, through July 31 2006, period of review

(POR)covering producers/exporters Hylsa, S.A. de C.V. (Hylsa) and Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A. (TAMSA). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). On November 1, 2006, TAMSA submitted a certification that it had not shipped OCTG to the United States during the POR and requested that the Department rescind the review with respect to TAMSA. *See* Letter from TAMSA to the Department, November 1, 2006. On November 15, 2006, Hylsa submitted a letter to the Department stating that shares of Hylsa's parent, Hylsamex, had been acquired by a company affiliated with TAMSA. Accordingly, Hylsa and TAMSA had common owners and were affiliated during the POR. As a result, Hylsa requested clarification from the Department as to whether the Department would require Hylsa to submit TAMSA's sales and/or cost information for the POR. *See* Letter from Hylsa to the Department, November 15, 2006. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire on February 16, 2007, requesting more information on this issue. Hylsa submitted a response on March 16, 2007. The preliminary results for this administrative review are currently due no later than May 3, 2007. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to complete the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the 245 day time period for the preliminary results to 365 days. The Department has determined it is not practicable to complete this review within the statutory time limit because additional time is required to determine whether it will be necessary to request sales and/or cost information from TAMSA as part of the Department's review of sales by Hylsa during the POR. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limits for completion of the preliminary results of this administrative review until no later than August 31, 2007, which is 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month of this order. We intend to issue the final results in this review no later than 120 days after publication of the preliminary results notice. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 27, 2007. Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8480 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-201-817 Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; Final Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Mexico. On the basis of the notice of intent to participate, adequate substantive responses, and rebuttal comments filed on behalf of the petitioners and respondent interested parties, the Department conducted a full sunset review of the antidumping duty order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2007 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202-482-0195 or 202-482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 1, 2006, the Department published its notice of initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 31153 (June 1, 2006) (“ *Notice of Initiation* ”). The Department received notices of intent to participate on behalf of United States Steel Corporation and IPSCO Tubulars Inc., Lone Star Steel Company, Koppel Steel (NS Group), Maverick Tube Corporation, Newport Steel (NS Group) and V&M Star LP (collectively “petitioners”), within the 15-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). Petitioners claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of a domestic-like product in the United States. The Department received complete substantive responses to the notice of initiation from the interested parties Hylsa S.A. de CV (“Hylsa”) and Tubos de Aceros de Mexico, S.A. (“TAMSA”) (collectively “respondent interested parties”) within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department received rebuttal responses from petitioners to the substantive responses from the respondent interested parties on July 5, 2006, and July 14, 2006, respectively. Section 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) provides that the Secretary normally will conclude that respondent interested parties have provided adequate response to a notice of initiation where the Department receives complete substantive responses from respondent interested parties accounting on average for more than 50 percent, by volume, or value, if appropriate, of the total exports of the subject merchandise to the United States over the five calendar years preceding the year of publication of the notice of initiation. On July 21, 2006, the Department found that respondent interested parties accounted for more than 50 percent of exports by volume of the subject merchandise from Mexico to the United States. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from John K. Drury entitled, “Adequacy Determination: Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico,” (July 21, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i), the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review of this antidumping duty order. On September 25, 2006, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department extended the deadlines for the preliminary and final results of this sunset review by 90 days. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary and Final Results of Full Five-year (“Sunset”) Review of Antidumping Duty Order* , 71 FR 55774. The Department published the preliminary results of this sunset review on December 26, 2006. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; Preliminary Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order* , 71 FR 77372 (December 26, 2006). In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department found that revocation of the order would likely result in continuation or recurrence of dumping with net margins of 21.70 percent for TAMSA and “all others,” and 0.62 percent for Hylsa. On February 14, 2007, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR § 351.309(c)(1)(i), the Department received case briefs on behalf of both TAMSA and Hylsa. On February 20, 2007, the Department rejected the case brief on behalf of Hylsa under 19 CFR § 351.302(d), as the Department determined that the brief contained new factual information submitted subsequent to the deadline for new factual information as proscribed in 19 CFR § 351.301(b)(3). The Department requested that Hylsa re-file the case brief no later than February 22, 2007, and extended the deadline for rebuttal briefs to February 28, 2007. On February 20, 2007, the Department received a rebuttal brief on behalf of petitioner IPSCO. On February 22, 2007, the Department received the corrected case brief on behalf of Hylsa. On February 28, the Department received rebuttal briefs on behalf of petitioner U.S. Steel. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is OCTG, hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (“API”) or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited-service OCTG products). The scope of this order does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. The Department has determined that couplings, and coupling stock, are not within the scope of the antidumping order on OCTG from Mexico. *See* Letter to Interested Parties; Final Affirmative Scope Decision, August 27, 1998. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. Our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Full Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) from Mexico; Final Results,” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated April 27, 2007 (“Decision Memo”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the antidumping duty order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margins: Manufacturers/Producers/Exporters Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) TAMSA 21.70 Hylsa 0.62 All Others 21.70 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 27, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8483 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 042607A] Marine Mammals; File No. 727-1915 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California, 8635 Discovery Way, La Jolla, CA 92093, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on marine mammals for scientific research purposes. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and 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)973-2935; fax (808)973-2941. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 727-1915. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly or Kate Swails, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 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). The applicant requests authority to study 31 cetacean species including blue ( *Balaenoptera musculus* ), fin ( *Balaenoptera physalus* ), and humpback ( *Megaptera novaeangliae* ) whales. The purpose of the research is to improve baseline data on marine mammal status, abundance, stock structure, life history, seasonal distribution, and acoustic communication and behavior of non-ESA and ESA listed species. Activities include photo-identification, biopsy, suction-cup tagging, and fecal sampling. Research would be conducted in the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of the United States and around the Hawaiian Islands. No mortality of animals is requested. The permit would be issued for five years. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: April 26, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-8398 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 042607B] Endangered Species; File No. 1557 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for modification SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Molly Lutcavage, Department of Zoology, 177 A Spaulding Hall, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824-2617, has requested a modification to scientific research Permit No. 1557. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: The modification request and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this request should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular modification request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 1557. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Opay or Kate Swails, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject modification to Permit No. 1557, issued on June 21, 2006 (71 FR 36520) is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (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. 1557 authorizes the permit holder to investigate leatherback sea turtle regional behavior and movements in near-shore waters off the eastern United States and to identify their dispersal in relation to oceanographic conditions and fishing activities. The research will also help establish baseline health assessments, genetic identities, sex ratios, and stable isotope composition of leatherback sea turtle tissues and prey. Researchers are authorized to conduct research on up to 12 leatherback sea turtles annually that have been disentangled from fishing gear by the stranding network or that researchers have captured using a breakaway hoop net. Turtles are measured, weighed, photographed and video taped, flipper and passive integrated transponder

(PIT)tagged, blood sampled, cloacal swabbed, nasal swabbed, skin sampled, tagged with electronic instruments, and released. The research permit was issued for 5 years. The permit holder currently requests authorization to take an additional eight leatherbacks per year. Turtles would be measured, weighed, photographed and video taped, flipper and PIT tagged, blood sampled, cloacal swabbed, nasal swabbed, skin sampled. The researchers propose to attach satellite-linked data recorders to the turtle's carapace and to feed stomach temperature pills to the animals. These pills would record stomach temperatures and transmit them to the satellite-linked data recorder for transmission to the researchers. This research would help researchers better understand where, when, and under what environmental conditions leatherback sea turtles forage so as to better predict their movements. This information would be used to help predict leatherback movements and potential interactions with fisheries and other human activities to allow resource managers to design management strategies to protect this species. Dated: April 26, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-8399 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). *Title:* Secrecy and License to Export. *Form Number(s):* N/A. *Agency Approval Number:* 0651-0034. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 1,310 hours annually. *Number of Respondents:* 1,669 responses per year. *Avg. Hours per Response:* It is estimated to take between 30 minutes (0.5 hours) and 4.0 hours for the public to gather, prepare and submit the various petitions in this collection. *Needs and Uses:* In the interest of national security, patent laws and rules place certain limitations on the disclosure of information contained in patents and patent applications and on the filing of applications for patents in foreign countries. When an invention is determined to be detrimental to national security, the Director of the USPTO must issue a secrecy order and withhold the grant of a patent for such period as the national interest requires. The USPTO collects information to determine whether the patent laws and rules have been complied with, and to grant or revoke licenses to file abroad when appropriate. This collection is required by 35 U.S.C. 181-188 and administered through 37 CFR 5.1-5.33. There are no forms associated with this collection of information. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; and not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by any of the following: • *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-0034 copy request” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan K. Fawcett. • *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before June 4, 2007 to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Dated: April 26, 2007. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E7-8456 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. PTO-C-2007-0018] Request for Comments on International Efforts To Harmonize Substantive Requirements of Patent Laws AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of request for public comments. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking comments to obtain the views of the public on international efforts to harmonize substantive requirements of patent laws, and any potential subsequent changes to United States law and practice. Comments may be offered on any aspect of these efforts. DATES: Comments will be accepted on a continuous basis until June 22, 2007. See discussion of “Text” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to offer written comments by mail should address those comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Office of International Relations, Madison West Building, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313, marked to the attention of Mr. Jon P. Santamauro. Comments may also be submitted to Mr. Santamauro by facsimile transmission to

(571)273-0085 or by electronic mail through the Internet at *plharmonization@uspto.gov* . The comments will be available for public inspection via the USPTO's Internet Web site (address: *http://www.uspto.gov* ). Because comments will be made available for public inspection, information that is not desired to be made public, such as an address or phone number, should not be included in the comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jon P. Santamauro by telephone at

(571)272-9300, by fax at

(571)273-0085 or by mail marked to his attention and addressed to United States Patent and Trademark Office, Office of International Relations, 600 Dulany Street, Madison West Building, Tenth Floor, Alexandria, VA 22313. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background The United States has been involved in efforts to harmonize the substantive patent laws in the different countries of the world for many years. Recent efforts have been made to streamline this process by limiting the number of topics for consideration in this exercise with the aim of achieving a meaningful near-term agreement. These efforts were initiated in proposals before the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP), meeting under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), but more recently consensus has not been reached on a particular work plan in that body. Since early 2005, a group of countries, sometimes referred to as the “Alexandria Process” or the “Group B+,” has been meeting informally to advance discussions on patent law harmonization in WIPO in the categories of:

(1)Definition of prior art,

(2)grace period,

(3)novelty, and

(4)inventive step or non-obviousness. Each of these items relates to applicability of “prior art.” These four categories are commonly referred to as the “limited package.” These are core elements in patent examination in countries around the world. The “B+” countries include the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, the Members of the European Union and the Members of the European Patent Convention. It has been recognized that the items under discussion provide the best chance for achieving a meaningful near-term agreement on patent law harmonization. Upon conclusion, an agreement on these elements would provide a harmonized system on global applicability of these prior art-related principles. This would allow for more uniform treatment of patent applications and patent grants, improve patent quality and reduce costs for patent owners in obtaining and preserving their rights for inventions in many countries of the world. Meetings of “Group B+” and consultations relating to the WIPO SCP are expected to be convened in 2007. The USPTO is interested in obtaining comprehensive comments regarding these efforts. 2. Issues for Public Comment The purpose of this notice is to identify and briefly outline important issues that have arisen and are likely to arise during meetings of the “Group B+” and WIPO SCP on patent law harmonization. A brief summary of some of these issues is provided below. Any comments provided with regard to the particular items identified below should be numbered in correspondence with the numbering of these items as shown. Comments on any aspects of these topics are welcome. This would include comments relating to what practices described may constitute “best practices” in an internationally harmonized system, as well as any other matter relating to the topics identified. The listing of topics is not meant to be exhaustive. Comments offered on other topics relating to efforts on patent law harmonization or to the four “limited-package” categories of defining prior art, grace period, novelty or inventive step, that have not been specifically recited below should be provided under the heading ”Other Comments.”

(1)*Priority of Invention* . The United States currently adheres to what is usually called the “first-to-invent system” with respect to priority contests between independent inventors who are claiming rights to the same invention. In the context of current U.S. patent law, this entails the establishment of

(1)conception of the invention and

(2)reduction to practice of the invention by a particular date. Under certain circumstances, the U.S. system permits the party that has reduced the invention to practice later than another to prove that it was the first-to-invent, and thereby entitled to the patent, by establishing a prior date of conception of the invention. The remainder of the world uses what is referred to as a “first-inventor-to-file” (or more widely referred to as “first-to-file”) rule in determining the right to a patent. Generally speaking, this practice determines contests between two parties that have independently invented the same invention, and awards the patent to the inventor that files his or her application first in time with the patent authorities in the relevant national or regional patent system. While this topic itself is not one of the four categories of the limited package noted above, this issue would need to be resolved to achieve an agreement on those issues, and has been raised in that context.

(2)*Prior Art Effective Date of Published U.S. Patent Applications* . United States patent law provides that published patent applications and grants are considered prior art with respect to a second patent application provided the application is earlier filed in the United States and is published or granted as required by 35 U.S.C. 102(e). In other words, the prior art effective date of a published application or granted patent is its date of filing in the United States. The Paris Convention provides that applicants may file first in their country of origin and then have a twelve-month period in which to file in foreign markets without harming their ability to obtain protection in those foreign markets. According to U.S. patent law, applications from foreign applicants who rely on the Paris Convention priority date obtain a patent-defeating prior art effect only from the date of filing in the United States. See In re Hilmer, 359 F.2d 859 (CCPA 1966) and 35 U.S.C. 102(e). In other patent systems in the world, applicants (including U.S. origin applicants) obtain prior art effect from the date of their first filing under the Paris Convention, usually 12 months prior to the filing in the country where protection is sought. However, current United States patent law does provide that international application publications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty are available as prior art as of their international filing date, if the international application was filed on or after November 29, 2000, designated the United States, and published in English under the rules of that Treaty. See 35 U.S.C. 102(e).

(3)*Scope of Prior Art Effect of Published Patent Applications* . As noted above, United States patent law provides that published patent applications and grants are considered prior art for the purposes of both novelty and non-obviousness provided the application is earlier filed and is published or granted as required by 35 U.S.C. 102(e). *Hazeltine Research* v. *Brenner* , 382 U.S. 252, 147 USPQ 429 (1965). This practice helps to prevent grant of overlapping patent rights and to prevent third parties from being threatened by multiple patent infringement lawsuits for substantially the same acts. Other patent systems apply this type of prior art only with respect to novelty, due to concerns of the effect of what may be considered “secret” prior art against a second-in-time inventor who was not aware that any prior art was in existence when its second-in-time patent application was filed. This prior art is considered “secret” in these jurisdictions because this type of prior art has a patent-defeating effect as of its filing date which is prior to its publication. Such a novelty-only system, however, may allow for the granting of multiple patents directed to obvious variations of the same invention.

(4)*Grace Period* . Through operation of the prior art definitions of 35 U.S.C. 102, United States patent law provides a “grace period” of one year prior to the date of application in the United States. Disclosures by the inventor during the “grace period” do not have a patent-defeating effect. During this period, only disclosures “by another” have patent defeating effect. See 35 U.S.C. 102. The “grace period” is considered by many to be necessary to allow inventors to disclose their invention without the penalty of extinguishing any patent rights for that invention. This is generally raised in the context of those applicants that either have strong incentives to publish early in their fields or, as in the case of independent inventors or small entities, those applicants that are not well versed in the patent system and may inadvertently extinguish their rights through publication. Some other systems, including that in the European Patent Convention (EPC), have an “absolute novelty” requirement such that any disclosures, including those by an inventor himself, made prior to the date a patent application is filed, are considered prior art. Proponents of the “absolute novelty” standard generally view this standard as providing increased legal certainty in that any publication will constitute prior art against a later filed patent application, regardless of the author. An issue raised in this context is the appropriate length of the “grace period” if introduced globally. Consistent with existing practice, the United States has argued for a twelve-month grace period to ensure optimal utility for applicants, and that the grace period should arise solely by operation of law. Some countries have raised the issue of providing for procedural mechanisms, such as a requirement for the patent applicant to make a declaration of intent to invoke the “grace period,” that would require a patent applicant to list any disclosure that the applicant has made in the past twelve months in order to be considered to fall within the grace period. However, others have argued that such a procedural mechanism, which currently does not exist in United States practice, would vitiate the benefits of such a grace period and harm those parties most likely to benefit from such a grace period, e.g., small entities or other applicants less familiar with the patent system. There are discussions ongoing as well as to the scope of any such grace period. Some have advocated for a broader grace period that would include any information disclosed by or on behalf of an inventor. Others have advocated the view that published patent applications should be excluded from the grace period on the grounds that applying a grace period to patent applications published at eighteen months would unduly extend, by an additional twelve months, the amount of time for applicants to file multiple patent applications on the same invention. Further, it is argued that the equities are not the same in this situation as the application has already knowingly applied for patent protection on the same or related subject matter.

(5)*Geographical Limitations in the Definition of Prior Art* . Recent discussions at the international level have indicated a willingness on the part of states to eliminate any geographical restrictions that limit the definition of prior art. Currently, United States prior art requirements limit certain types of non-written disclosures to acts within the United States, see 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and 102(b). Some have argued that these restrictions discriminate against countries, in particular certain developing countries where there are traditions of non-written disclosures that should be patent defeating if adequately established. It has also been argued that concerns about the reliability of oral or other non-written disclosures can be more adequately addressed through evidentiary provisions rather than through the substantive patent law.

(6)*“Loss of Right” Provisions* . Current U.S. patent law, 35 U.S.C. 102(b), bars the grant of a patent when the invention was “in public use or on sale” more than one year prior to filing in the United States. The “on sale” provision may bar patenting in this instance, even where the invention has not been disclosed to the public, if it remains “on sale.” Secret commercial use by the inventor is also covered by the bar in order to prevent the preservation of patent rights when, although an invention has remained secret, there has been successful commercial exploitation of the invention by its inventor beyond one year before filing. See, *e.g.* , *Metallizing Engineering Co* . v. *Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts* , 153 F.2d 516 (CCPA 1946). These provisions are generally considered to promote early disclosure of inventions through patents and to prevent unjustified extensions of the term of exclusive protection by requiring early filing of patent applications in these circumstances. Most other patent systems do not have such provisions. Advocates of eliminating such requirements argue that such requirements are not objective in nature and therefore add uncertainty and complexity to the patent system.

(7)*“Experimental Use” Exception to Prior Art* . United States patent law provides that a public use or sale by the inventor may be exempt from the prior art if that use or sale was experimental. The courts have considered a use or sale to be experimental if “it represents a *bona fide* effort to perfect the invention or to ascertain whether it will answer its intended purpose. * * * If any commercial exploitation does occur, it must be merely incidental to the primary purpose of the experimentation to perfect the invention.” *LaBounty Mfg* . v. *United States Int'l Trade Comm'n* , 958 F.2d 1066, 1071, 22 USPQ2d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting *Pennwalt Corp* . v. *Akzona Inc.* , 740 F.2d 1573, 1581, 222 USPQ 833, 838 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Contrary to the grace period, this exemption from the prior art is not time limited but is considered on a case-by-case basis. Most other systems do not contain such a limitation on prior art. If prior public uses are made, these items constitute prior art, subject to a time-limited grace period in some jurisdictions, regardless of whether the uses are experimental in nature, unless the use is not sufficiently informing to the public.

(8)*Prior User Rights* . While the issue is also not one of those expressly included in the four limited-package categories, this matter has been raised by numerous delegations in the context of patent law harmonization discussions. The United States currently has a defense to infringement with respect to a person, acting in good faith, who had actually reduced the subject matter of an invention to practice at least one year before the effective filing date of a patent application for that invention by another. See 35 U.S.C. 273. This defense is limited in many respects, most notably that it can only be asserted if the invention for which the defense is asserted is a method, defined as a method of doing or conducting business, and further that it may not be asserted if the subject matter on which the defense is asserted is derived from the patentee or persons in privity with the patentee. These types of infringement defenses are generally referred to as “prior user rights.” Other countries have varying practices, but more generally apply such defense to both products and processes and to persons that, in good faith, either use the invention or make effective and serious preparations for such use prior to the effective filing date for the patent application. Further, there is a split between jurisdictions that provide prior user rights. Some apply these rights more broadly to those parties that have derived their use from information from the patentee, including publications by the patentee or inventor prior to the filing date of the later application. Other jurisdictions take a narrower approach that limits prior user rights to those persons who, in good faith, independently developed the later patented product or process. Comments on any aspects of prior user rights, including whether this element should be included with the current talks on prior-art related matters, are welcome.

(9)*Assignee Filing* . United States patent law now requires that a patent application be made, or authorized to be made, by the inventor or inventors. However, some systems allow for direct filing of patent applications by assignees. These systems generally require that the inventor be named in the application and the entitlement to the patent must derive from the inventor or his successor in title, such as an assignee.

(10)*Eighteen-Month Publication of Patent Applications* . Most countries publish all patent applications at eighteen months after the application's filing date (or priority date) and prior to grant of the patent. This is sometimes referred to as “pre-grant publication.” This publication requirement is considered by many to be an important transparency mechanism for the patent system and to prevent the occurrence of so-called “submarine” patents that may be pending in the patent office for an extended period of time and then are granted, potentially affecting good faith actors in the relevant field. It should be noted that if the patent application is withdrawn or abandoned by an applicant prior to the eighteen-month date in these jurisdictions, the application is not published. The United States currently provides eighteen-month publication for the large majority of patent applications filed in the United States. However, U.S. patent applications may not be published if an applicant requests at the time of filing of an application that the application not be published and the request certifies that the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be the subject of a patent application in another country or under a multilateral international agreement that requires eighteen-month publication. See 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B). Most other systems do not have this type of “opt-out” option. Advocates of eliminating this type of “opt-out” procedure generally consider this type of provision to undermine the transparency and legal certainty provided by publication. 3. Further Reference Comments on any issues regarding the topics listed above, other matters relating to the four “limited-package” categories of

(1)definition or prior art,

(2)grace period,

(3)novelty, and

(4)non-obviousness, or any other aspects relating to substantive patent law harmonization are welcome. To facilitate final preparations for the future meetings, comments will be accepted until June 22, 2007. Interested members of the public are also reminded that USPTO previously requested public comments on a wider range of issues relating to patent law harmonization in March 2001. The responses to that request for comments are available on the Internet Web site of the USPTO at *http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/harmonization/* . Dated: April 26, 2007. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E7-8416 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [No. DOD-2007-OS-0037] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service

(DFAS)announces the proposed extension of a public information collection and seeks public comments on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on:

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instrument, please write to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service—Denver, DFAS-JES/DE, ATTN: Sue Debevec, 6760 East Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-3000, or call Sue Debevec at 303-676-5050. *Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number:* Request for Information Regarding Deceased Debtor; DD Form 2840; OMB Number 0730-0015. *Needs and Uses:* This form is used to obtain information on deceased debtors from probate courts. Probate courts review their records to see if an estate was established. They provide the name and address of the executor or lawyer handling the estate. From the information obtained, DFAS submits a claim against the estate for the amount due the United States. *Affected Public:* Clerks of Probate Courts. *Annual Burden Hours:* 167 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 2,000. *Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 5 minutes. *Frequency:* On Occasion. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Information Collection DFAS maintains updated debt accounts and initiates debt collection action for separated military members, out-of-service civilian employees, and other individuals not on an active federal government payroll system. When notice is received that an individual is deceased, an effort is made to ascertain whether the decedent left an estate by contacting clerks of probate courts. If it's determined that an estate was established, attempts are made to collect the debt from the estate. If no estate appears to have been established, the debt is written off as uncollectible. Dated: April 23, 2007. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 07-2141 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents

CFR