5564 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Notices 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–351–840 ......................... 731–TA–1089 Brazil .................................. Orange Juice ..................... David Goldberger, (202) 482–4136. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

Dated: January 25, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2197 Filed 1–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2011–0001] 

Grant of Interim Extension of the Term 

of U.S. Patent No. 4,971,802; 

MIFAMURTIDE 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of interim patent term 

extension. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office has issued a 

certificate under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for 

a fourth one-year interim extension of 

the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,971,802. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul 

Tamayo by telephone at (571) 272–7728; 

by mail marked to his attention and 

addressed to the Commissioner for 

Patents, Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE, 

P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 

1450; by fax marked to his attention at 

(571) 273–7728, or by e-mail to Raul.

Tamayo@uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

156 of Title 35, United States Code, 

generally provides that the term of a 

patent may be extended for a period of 

up to five years if the patent claims a 

product, or a method of making or using 

a product, that has been subject to 

certain defined regulatory review, and 

that the patent may be extended for 

interim periods of up to a year if the 

regulatory review is anticipated to 

extend beyond the expiration date of the 

patent. 

On September 30, 2010, IDM Pharma, 

agent/licensee of patent owner Novartis, 

timely filed an application under 35 

U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a fourth interim 

extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 

4,971,802. Claims of the patent cover 

muramyl tripeptide phosphatidyl 

ethanolamine, which is labeled as the 

active ingredient in the human drug 

product Mifamurtide. The application 

indicates, and the Food and Drug 

Administration has confirmed, that a 

New Drug Application for the human 

drug product Mifamurtide has been 

filed and is currently undergoing 

regulatory review before the Food and 

Drug Administration for permission to 

market or use the product commercially. 

Review of the application indicates 

that, except for permission to market or 

use the product commercially, the 

subject patent would be eligible for an 

extension of the patent term under 35 

U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should 

be extended for an additional year as 

required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). 

Because it is apparent that the 

regulatory review period will continue 

beyond the extended expiration date of 

the patent (November 20, 2010), interim 

extension of the patent term under 35 

U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate. 

A fourth interim extension under 35 

U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. 

Patent No. 4,971,802 was granted for a 

period of one year from the extended 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Notices 5565 

expiration date of the patent, i.e., until 

November 20, 2011. 

Dated: January 26, 2011. 

Robert W. Bahr, 

Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent 

Examination Policy, United States Patent and 

Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2088 Filed 1–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Stay of Enforcement of 

Testing and Certification Pertaining to 

Youth All-Terrain Vehicles 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Stay of enforcement. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC,’’ ‘‘Commission,’’ or 

‘‘we’’) is announcing its decision to stay 

enforcement of the testing of youth allterrain vehicles (‘‘ATVs’’) by third party 

conformity assessment bodies, subject to 

conditions, until November 27, 2011. 

DATES: This stay of enforcement is 

effective on February 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Leland, Project Manager, 

Directorate for Economic Analysis, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 

Maryland 20814; e-mail 

eleland@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 14(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’), 

as added by section 102(a)(2) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’), Public Law 110– 

314, directs the CPSC to establish and 

publish a notice of requirements for 

accreditation of third party conformity 

assessment bodies to assess children’s 

products for conformity with ‘‘other 

children’s product safety rules.’’ Section 

14(f)(1) of the CPSA defines ‘‘children’s 

product safety rule’’ as ‘‘a consumer 

product safety rule under [the CPSA] or 

similar rule, regulation, standard, or ban 

under any other Act enforced by the 

Commission, including a rule declaring 

a consumer product to be a banned 

hazardous product or substance.’’ Under 

section 14(a)(3)(A) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2063(a)(3)(A), each manufacturer 

(including an importer) or private 

labeler of products subject to those 

regulations must have products that are 

manufactured more than 90 days after 

the establishment and Federal Register 

publication of a notice of the 

requirements for accreditation tested by 

a third party conformity assessment 

body accredited to do so, and must issue 

a certificate of compliance with the 

applicable regulations based on that 

testing. Pursuant to section 14(a)(3)(F) of 

the CPSA, the Commission may extend 

the 90-day period by not more than 60 

days if the Commission determines that 

an insufficient number of third party 

conformity assessment bodies have been 

accredited to permit certification for a 

children’s product safety rule. 

Irrespective of certification, the product 

in question must comply with 

applicable CPSC requirements (see, e.g., 

section 14(h) of the CPSA, as added by 

section 102(b) of the CPSIA). 

In the Federal Register of August 27, 

2010 (75 FR 52616), we published a 

notice of requirements that provided the 

criteria and process for Commission 

acceptance of accreditation of third 

party conformity assessment bodies for 

testing of ATVs designed or intended 

primarily for children 12 years of age or 

younger. The notice of requirements 

stated that, for youth ATVs 

manufactured after November 26, 2010, 

the manufacturer ‘‘must issue a 

certificate of compliance with 16 CFR 

part 1420 based on’’ testing performed 

by a third party conformity assessment 

body (75 FR at 52618). The notice also 

asked for comments to be received by 

September 27, 2010. 

In response to the notice of 

requirements, the Specialty Vehicle 

Institute of America (‘‘SVIA’’) filed a 

comment that included a request that 

the Commission extend by 60 days the 

date by which manufacturers must 

begin testing and certification of youth 

ATVs. Among the reasons given for the 

extension, were the complexity of 16 

CFR part 1420 and the fact that no third 

party conformity assessment bodies 

have been accredited by an accrediting 

body that is a signatory to the 

International Laboratory Accreditation 

Cooperation-Mutual Recognition 

Arrangement (ILAC–MRA), a 

prerequisite for such conformity 

assessment bodies to be accepted by the 

CPSC. 

On November 17, 2010, the SVIA filed 

a ‘‘Petition for Extension and Stay of 

Enforcement for Third Party Testing for 

Certain All-Terrain Vehicles.’’ The 

petition requested a 60-day extension of 

the date by which manufacturers must 

begin testing and certification of youth 

ATVs, stating that no third party 

conformity assessment bodies have been 

accredited by the CPSC to test for 

conformity with 16 CFR part 1420. The 

SVIA concluded that it is unlikely that 

a sufficient number of accredited third 

party conformity assessment bodies will 

exist by the end of the requested 60-day 

extension. As a result, the SVIA also 

requested that the Commission consider 

additional forms of relief, such as a 

further stay of enforcement of these 

requirements for one year (to November 

27, 2011). 

In response, in the Federal Register of 

December 9, 2010 (75 FR 76708), the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

announced that we would extend the 

date of testing and certification of youth 

ATVs until January 25, 2011. We 

acknowledged that we were ‘‘not aware 

of any third party conformity 

assessment bodies that have the 

requisite accreditation by an ILAC–MRA 

signatory to test for conformity to 16 

CFR part 1420’’ and so we were granting 

the request for a 60-day extension (75 

FR at 76709). However, with respect to 

the SVIA’s request for a one-year stay of 

enforcement, we decided to seek public 

comment and asked very specific 

questions: 

(1) What efforts have been made by 

ATV manufacturers or others to obtain 

tests of youth ATVs by third party 

conformity assessment bodies and to 

encourage third party conformity 

assessment bodies to become accredited 

to do so? 

(2) What is the status of the efforts of 

third party conformity assessment 

bodies to become accredited to test 

youth ATVs, and how long will it take 

to obtain such accreditation? 

(3) What barriers currently exist to 

gaining accreditation that is specifically 

related to youth ATVs? 

(4) How are ATV manufacturers 

currently demonstrating compliance 

with the ANSI/SVIA–1–2007 standard? 

What ATV manufacturers are currently 

doing in-house testing of their ATVs for 

conformance to the standard? What 

steps, if any, have these manufacturers 

taken to have their existing in-house 

testing facilities become accredited third 

party conformity assessment bodies? 

(5) What third party testing facilities 

are capable of testing youth ATVs to the 

ANSI/SVIA–2007–1 standard? 

II. Comments 

We received more than 400 

comments. Most comments were form 

letters that requested a stay of 

enforcement until November 27, 2011, 

because ‘‘the industry states that it will 

be unlikely enough labs will be online 

by the new January 25, 2011 deadline.’’ 

Most form letters were submitted by 

consumers, some of whom are members 

of the American Motorcyclist 

Association (‘‘AMA’’) and the All 

Terrain Vehicle Association (‘‘ATVA’’); 

the remaining form letters were 

submitted by rider associations, dealers, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES