Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Notices 61433 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4162 or (202) 482–

4406, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 8, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on canned pineapple fruit from 

Thailand. See Canned Pineapple Fruit 

From Thailand: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 45651 (August 8, 2005) 

(Preliminary Results). No interested 

parties filed case briefs in response to 

the Department’s invitation to comment 

on the Preliminary Results. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the order is 

canned pineapple fruit, defined as 

pineapple processed and/or prepared 

into various product forms, including 

rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and 

crushed pineapple, that is packed and 

cooked in metal cans with either 

pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. 

Imports of canned pineapple fruit are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). HTSUS 

2008.20.0010 covers canned pineapple 

fruit packed in a sugar–based syrup; 

HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers canned 

pineapple fruit packed without added 

sugar (i.e., juice–packed). The HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description of the merchandise 

covered by this order is dispositive. 

Partial Final Rescission of Review 

As stated in the preliminary results of 

this review, the Department confirmed 

that Prachuab Fruit Canning Co., Ltd. 

(PRAFT) made no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. Therefore, 

consistent with the Department’s 

preliminary results of this review, and 

in accordance with 19 CFR 

§ 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the 

instant review with respect to PRAFT. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

As noted above, we received no 

comments on the preliminary results of 

review. In these final results, we have 

made no changes to the weighted–

average dumping margins calculated for 

TPC and Vita in the preliminary results 

of this administrative review. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

weighted–average percentage margins 

exist for the period July 1, 2003, through 

June 30, 2004: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) 

Vita Food Factory 

(1989) Ltd. ................. 9.12 

Thai Pineapple Canning 

Industry Corp., Ltd. ... 51.16 

Assessment 

The Department will determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR § 351.212(b)(1), we 

calculated importer–specific assessment 

rates for Vita’s subject merchandise. 

Since Vita did not report the entered 

value for its sales, we calculated per–

unit assessment rates for its 

merchandise by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 

sales to each importer and dividing this 

amount by the total quantity of those 

sales. To determine whether the per–

unit duty assessment rates were de 

minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent ad 

valorem), in accordance with the 

requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

§ 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer–

specific ad valorem ratios based on 

export prices. Where the importer–

specific assessment rate is above de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 

the importer–specific rate uniformly on 

all entries made during the POR. For 

TPC, the respondent receiving a 

dumping margin based upon adverse 

facts available (AFA), we will instruct 

CBP to liquidate entries according to the 

AFA ad valorem rate. The Department 

will issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP within 15 

days of publication of these final results 

of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective for all shipments of 

canned pineapple fruit from Thailand 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of these final results of 

review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) 

of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for 

Vita and TPC will be the rates shown 

above; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company–specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the less–thanfair–value investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the subject merchandise; and (4) if 

neither the exporter nor the 

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or 

any previous review conducted by the 

Department, the cash deposit rate will 

be the ‘‘all others’’ rate, which is 24.64 

percent. These deposit requirements 

shall remain in effect until publication 

of the final results of the next 

administrative review. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

§ 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APOs) 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 terms of an APO is a violation that 

is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 

Dated: October 17, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E5–5863 Filed 10–21–05; 8:45 am] 

Billing Code: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

[Docket No. 2005–P–071] 

Patent and Trademark Office 

Grant of Interim Extension of the Term 

of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787; 

Vapreotide Acetate 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office. 

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 

61434 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Notices 

a one-year interim extension of the term 

of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karin Ferriter by telephone at (571) 

272–7744; by mail marked to her 

attention and addressed to Mail Stop 

Patent Ext., Commissioner for Patents, 

P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–

1450; by fax marked to her attention at 

(571) 273–7744, or by e-mail to 

Karin.Ferriter@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 April 7, 2005, H3 Pharma, Inc., an 

agent of the Administrators of the 

Tulane Educational Fund of New 

Orleans, Louisiana, the patent owner, 

timely filed an application under 35 

U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for an interim extension 

of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787. 

The patent claims the active ingredient 

vapreotide acetate in the human drug 

product Sanvar, and a method of use 

of said product. The application 

indicates that a New Drug Application 

for Sanvar (vapreotide acetate) 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 one year as required by 

35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). Since the 

regulatory review period extended 

beyond the expiration date of the patent 

April 25, 2005, interim extension of the 

patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is 

appropriate. 

An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 

156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 

4,650,787 is granted for a period of one 

year from the expiration date of the 

patent, i.e., until April 25, 2006. 

Dated: October 17, 2005. 

Jon W. Dudas, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 05–21191 Filed 10–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS

ANNOUNCEMENT: 70 FR 194. 

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF

THE MEETING: 11 a.m., Wednesday, 

October 26, 2005. 

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Rule 

Enforcement Review has been moved to 

Friday, October 28, 2005, at 11:45 a.m. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Jean A. Webb, (202) 418–5100. 

Jean A. Webb, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–21319 Filed 10–20–05; 2:24 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

TRICARE; Civilian Health and Medical 

Program of the Uniformed Services 

(CHAMPUS); Fiscal Year 2006 

Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) 

Updates 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of DRG revised rates. 

SUMMARY: This notice describes the 

changes made to the TRICARE DRGbased payment system in order to 

conform to changes made to the 

Medicare Prospective Payment System 

(PPS). It also provides the updated fixed 

loss cost outlier threshold, cost-tocharge ratios and the Internet address 

for accessing the updated adjusted 

standardized amount and DRG relative 

weights to be used for FY 2006 under 

the TRICARE DRG-based payment 

system. 

EFFECTIVE DATES: The rates, weights and 

Medicare PPS changes which affect the 

TRICARE DRG-based payment system 

contained in this notice are effective for 

admissions occurring on or after 

October 1, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: TRICARE Management 

Activity (TMA), Medical Benefits and 

Reimbursement Systems, 16401 East 

Centretech Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011–

9066. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marty Maxey, Medical Benefits and 

Reimbursement Systems, TMA, 

telephone (303) 676–3627. Questions 

regarding payment of specific claims 

under the TRICARE DRG-based 

payment system should be addressed to 

the appropriate contractor. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final 

rule published on September 1, 1987 (52 

FR 32992) set forth the basic procedures 

used under the CHAMPUS DRG-based 

payment system. This was subsequently 

amended by final rules published 

August 31, 1988 (53 FR 33461), October 

21, 1988 (53 FR 41331), December 16, 

1988 (53 FR 50515), May 30, 1990 (55 

FR 21863), October 22, 1990 (55 FR 

42560), and September 10, 1998 (63 FR 

48439). An explicit tenet of these final 

rules, and one based on the statute 

authorizing the use of DRGs by 

TRICARE, is that the TRICARE DRGbased payment system is modeled on 

the Medicare PPS, and that, whenever 

practicable, the TRICARE system will 

follow the same rules that apply to the 

Medicare PPS. The Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services (CMS) publishes 

these changes annually in the Federal 

Register and discusses in detail the 

impact of the changes. In addition, this 

notice updates the rates and weights in 

accordance with our previous final 

rules. The actual changes we are 

making, along with a description of 

their relationship to the Medicare PPS, 

are detailed below. 

I. Medicare PPS Changes Which Affect 

the TRICARE DRG-Based Payment 

System 

Following is a discussion of the 

changes CMS has made to the Medicare 

PPS that affect the TRICARE DRG-based 

payment system. 

A. DRG Classifications 

Under both the Medicare PPS and the 

TRICARE DRG-based payment system, 

cases are classified into the appropriate 

DRG by a Grouper program. The 

Grouper classifies each case into a DRG 

on the basis of the diagnosis and 

procedure codes and demographic 

information (that is, sex, age, and 

discharge status). The Grouper used for 

the TRICARE DRG-based payment 

system is the same as the current 

Medicare Grouper with two 

modifications. The TRICARE system has 

replaced Medicare DRG 435 with two 

age-based DRGs (900 and 901), and has 

implemented thirty-four (34) neonatal 

DRGs in place of Medicare DRGs 385 

through 390. For admissions occurring 

on or after October 1, 2001, DRG 435 has 

been replaced by DRG 523. The 

TRICARE system has replaced DRG 523 

with the two age-based DRGs (900 and 

901). For admissions occurring on or 

after October 1, 1995, the CHAMPUS 

grouper hierarchy logic was changed so 

the age split (age <29 days) and 

assignments to MDC 15 occur before