In the Matter of Certain Modified Vaccinia Ankara (“MVA”) Viruses and Vaccines and Pharmaceutical Compositions Based Thereon; Notice of Commission Decision To Review the Final Initial Determination; Extension of the Target Date for Completion of the Investigation; Schedule for Briefing on the Issues on Review and Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding, 69143-69144 [E6-20178]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 29, 2006 / Notices
The meeting will be open to the
public. Any member of the public may
file with the Commission a written
statement concerning the matters to be
discussed. Persons wishing further
information concerning this meeting, or
who wish to submit written statements,
may contact Kevin Brandt,
Superintendent, Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal National Historical Park. Minutes
of the meeting will be available for
public inspection six weeks after the
meeting at Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
National Historical Park Headquarters,
1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100,
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740.
Dated: October 24, 2006.
Kevin D. Brandt,
Superintendent, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal,
National Historical Park.
[FR Doc. E6–20228 Filed 11–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–6V–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–550]
In the Matter of Certain Modified
Vaccinia Ankara (‘‘MVA’’) Viruses and
Vaccines and Pharmaceutical
Compositions Based Thereon; Notice
of Commission Decision To Review the
Final Initial Determination; Extension
of the Target Date for Completion of
the Investigation; Schedule for Briefing
on the Issues on Review and Remedy,
Public Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in its entirety the final initial
determination (‘‘final ID’’) issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) in the above-captioned
investigation and to extend the target
date for completion of the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James A. Worth, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3065. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
inspection during official business
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:37 Nov 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov).
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
investigation was instituted on
September 23, 2005, based on a
complaint filed by Bavarian Nordic
A/S (‘‘Bavarian Nordic’’) of Denmark.
The complaint alleged violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain modified vaccinia ankara
(‘‘MVA’’) viruses and vaccines and
pharmaceutical compositions based
thereon by reason of infringement of
various claims of United States Patent
Nos. 6,761,893 (‘‘the ’893 patent’’) and
6,913,752 (‘‘the ’752 patent’’). The
complaint also alleged violations of
section 337 in the importation of certain
MVA viruses and vaccines and
pharmaceutical compositions based
thereon or in the sale of such articles by
reason of misappropriation of trade
secrets, the threat or effect of which is
to destroy or substantially injure an
industry in the United States. The
complaint named a single respondent,
Acambis PLC (‘‘Acambis’’) of the United
Kingdom.
On November 30, 2005, the ALJ
issued an order (Order No. 10) denying
Acambis’ motion to terminate the
investigation on the basis of 28 U.S.C.
1498.
On April 14, 2006, the ALJ issued an
ID (Order No. 26) terminating the trade
secret portion of this investigation based
on an agreement to arbitrate between
Bavarian Nordic and Acambis. On May
9, 2006, the Commission declined to
review this ID.
On April 17, 2006, the ALJ issued an
ID (Order No. 27) granting in part
respondent’s motion for summary
determination with regard to the
conversion claim, on the basis, inter
alia, that it was insufficiently pled. In a
separate notice issued on May 9, 2006,
the Commission reviewed the ID on the
conversion claim, affirming the
dismissal of the conversion claim and
taking no position on the ALJ’s finding
of no jurisdiction over the conversion
claim.
After a hearing and post-hearing
briefing, the ALJ issued a final initial
determination (‘‘final ID’’) on September
6, 2006, finding no violation of section
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69143
337. The ALJ held that the patents were
infringed but invalid.
Bavarian Nordic, Acambis, and the
Commission investigative attorney filed
petitions for review of the final ID. By
notice of October 20, 2006, the
Commission extended the deadline for
determining whether to review the final
ID to Wednesday, November 22, 2006
and extended the target date for
completion of the investigation to
Monday, January 8, 2007.
Having examined the relevant
portions of the record in this
investigation, including the final ID, the
petitions for review, and the responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
to review the final ID in its entirety, as
well as Order No. 10. The Commission
has also determined to extend the target
date for completion of the investigation
to January 31, 2007.
The Commission requests briefing
based on the evidentiary record on the
issues on review. The Commission is
particularly interested in responses to
the following questions:
Regarding Both the ’893 and ’752 Patents
(1) Does 28 U.S.C. 1498(a) constitute an
affirmative defense available in section 337
investigations? If so, has Acambis properly
and timely raised and maintained this
defense? What are the consequences of
having successfully raised and maintained
this defense in a section 337 proceeding?
Regarding the ’893 Patent
(1) As a matter of claim construction, does
‘‘virus deposited’’ in claim 1 refer to an
isolated, purified virus?
(2) Can the virus deposited be identified by
sequence alone or is replication behavior a
limitation of the virus deposited? If two
viruses contain identical DNA coding region
sequences, are the viral genomes necessarily
identical? If not, e.g., if viruses contained
different inverted terminal repeats, is
replication behavior necessarily the same?
What are the consequences of replication
behavior for determining anticipation and
infringement of ‘‘virus deposited * * * and
derivatives’’ in claim 1?
(3) May a mixture of viruses containing the
claimed virus anticipate claim 1 regardless of
the replication behavior of the mixture? Does
MVA–572 or MVA–575 inherently anticipate
claim 1 even if those prior art viruses were
not homogenous?
(4) Is MVA–F6 homogenous and does
MVA–F6 directly anticipate claim 1?
Regarding the ’752 Patent
(1) Is there any evidence that the terms
‘‘non-replicative’’ and ‘‘not capable of
reproductive replication’’ have different
meanings, despite the use of different words?
Should the terms ‘‘non-replicative’’ and
‘‘permit replication’’ as they appear in the
asserted claims of the ’752 patent be
construed in conformance with the teaching
from the specification that ‘‘the term ‘not
capable of reproductive replication’ means
that the virus of the present invention
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
69144
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 29, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
exhibits an amplification ratio of less than 1
in human cell lines, such as 293 (ECACC No.
85120602), 143B (ECACC No. 91112502),
HeLa (ATCC No. CCL–2) and HaCat
(Boukamp et al. 1988, J Cell Biol 106(3): 761–
71) under the conditions outlined in Example
1 of the present specification’’? ’752 patent,
col. 2, lines 53–59.
(2) Would a virus be considered to
replicate if it sometimes replicated and other
times did not? Is a person of ordinary skill
in the art only concerned with mean values
to the exclusion of standard error analysis?
Would a person of ordinary skill in the art
find viral replication if the mean value were
above 1 even if the confidence intervals
straddled 1? Would a person of ordinary skill
in the art find no replication if the mean
value were below 1 and the confidence
intervals straddled 1?
(3) Is there evidence that MVA–575
possesses a replication ratio of 1 or greater in
HaCaT and other human cells? Is there clear
and convincing evidence that MVA–575
possesses a replication ratio less than 1 in
HaCaT and other human cells?
(4) Given the claim construction in Order
No. 31 regarding ‘‘replication,’’ would it
matter to enablement, written description,
infringement, or domestic industry of the
’752 patent whether MVA–BN replicated less
than MVA–575 if MVA–575 still possessed a
replication ratio less than 1 in human cells?
Is the ALJ’s claim construction of this term
correct to a person of ordinary skill in the
art? Answers to the above should give precise
citations to the record and should take into
account the confidence interval.
(5) Figure 1A indicates that the replication
rates for certain MVA viruses are different.
This is especially apparent at higher
replication rates. Does the difference in
replication rates indicate that these viruses
are not identical? Would the lack of identity
be reflected in the genome? If so, what part
of the genome would reflect the lack of
identity? The coding region? The noncoding
region? Both?
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue (1) An order that
could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the
United States, and/or (2) cease and
desist orders that could result in
respondents being required to cease and
desist from engaging in unfair acts in
the importation and sale of such
articles. Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
If a party seeks exclusion of an article
from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
affecting it or are likely to do so. For
background information, see the
Commission Opinion, In the Matter of
Certain Devices for Connecting
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:37 Nov 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv.
No. 337–TA–360.
If the Commission contemplates some
form of remedy, it must consider the
effects of that remedy upon the public
interest. The factors the Commission
will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist
orders would have on (1) The public
health and welfare, (2) competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or
directly competitive with those that are
subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors
in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the President has 60 days to
approve or disapprove the
Commission’s action. During this
period, the subject articles would be
entitled to enter the United States under
a bond, in an amount to be determined
by the Commission and prescribed by
the Secretary of the Treasury. The
Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the
amount of the bond that should be
imposed.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues under
review. The submissions should be
concise and thoroughly referenced to
the record in this investigation,
including references to exhibits and
testimony. Additionally, the parties to
the investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
persons are encouraged to file written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the ALJ’s
September 6, 2006, recommended
determination on remedy and bonding.
Complainant and the Commission
investigative attorney are also requested
to submit proposed remedial orders for
the Commission’s consideration.
Complainant is requested to supply the
expiration dates of the patents at issue
and the HTSUS numbers under which
the accused products are imported. The
written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later
than the close of business on December
12, 2006. Reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business
on December 22, 2006. No further
submissions will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file with the Office of the Secretary
the original and 12 true copies thereof
on or before the deadlines stated above.
Any person desiring to submit a
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
document (or portion thereof) to the
Commission in confidence must request
confidential treatment unless the
information has already been granted
such treatment during the proceedings.
All such requests should be directed to
the Secretary of the Commission and
must include a full statement of the
reasons why the Commission should
grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6.
Documents for which confidential
treatment is granted by the Commission
will be treated accordingly. All
nonconfidential written submissions
will be available for public inspection at
the Office of the Secretary.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and under sections 210.42–.46, .51(a) of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–.46, .51(a)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: November 22, 2006.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6–20178 Filed 11–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1105–0071]
National Drug Intelligence Center;
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Reinstatement
With Change of a Previously Approved
Collection; Comments Requested
30-Day Notice of Information
Collection Under Review: Reinstatement
with Change of a Previously Approved
Collection National Drug Threat Survey.
ACTION:
The United States Department of
Justice (DOJ), National Drug Intelligence
Center (NDIC), has submitted the
following information collection request
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed
information collection is published to
obtain comments from the public and
affected agencies. This proposed
information collection was previously
published in the Federal Register
Volume 71, Number 187, page 56552 on
September 27, 2006, allowing for a 60
day comment period.
The purpose of this notice is to allow
for an additional 30 days for public
comment until December 29, 2006. This
process is conducted in accordance with
5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions
regarding the items contained in this
notice, especially the estimated public
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 29, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69143-69144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20178]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-550]
In the Matter of Certain Modified Vaccinia Ankara (``MVA'')
Viruses and Vaccines and Pharmaceutical Compositions Based Thereon;
Notice of Commission Decision To Review the Final Initial
Determination; Extension of the Target Date for Completion of the
Investigation; Schedule for Briefing on the Issues on Review and
Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in its entirety the final initial
determination (``final ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') in the above-captioned investigation and to extend the
target date for completion of the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Worth, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3065. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are
or will be available for inspection during official business hours
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server
(https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be
viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information
on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD
terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation was instituted on
September 23, 2005, based on a complaint filed by Bavarian Nordic A/S
(``Bavarian Nordic'') of Denmark. The complaint alleged violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in
the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and
the sale within the United States after importation of certain modified
vaccinia ankara (``MVA'') viruses and vaccines and pharmaceutical
compositions based thereon by reason of infringement of various claims
of United States Patent Nos. 6,761,893 (``the '893 patent'') and
6,913,752 (``the '752 patent''). The complaint also alleged violations
of section 337 in the importation of certain MVA viruses and vaccines
and pharmaceutical compositions based thereon or in the sale of such
articles by reason of misappropriation of trade secrets, the threat or
effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in
the United States. The complaint named a single respondent, Acambis PLC
(``Acambis'') of the United Kingdom.
On November 30, 2005, the ALJ issued an order (Order No. 10)
denying Acambis' motion to terminate the investigation on the basis of
28 U.S.C. 1498.
On April 14, 2006, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 26) terminating
the trade secret portion of this investigation based on an agreement to
arbitrate between Bavarian Nordic and Acambis. On May 9, 2006, the
Commission declined to review this ID.
On April 17, 2006, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 27) granting in
part respondent's motion for summary determination with regard to the
conversion claim, on the basis, inter alia, that it was insufficiently
pled. In a separate notice issued on May 9, 2006, the Commission
reviewed the ID on the conversion claim, affirming the dismissal of the
conversion claim and taking no position on the ALJ's finding of no
jurisdiction over the conversion claim.
After a hearing and post-hearing briefing, the ALJ issued a final
initial determination (``final ID'') on September 6, 2006, finding no
violation of section 337. The ALJ held that the patents were infringed
but invalid.
Bavarian Nordic, Acambis, and the Commission investigative attorney
filed petitions for review of the final ID. By notice of October 20,
2006, the Commission extended the deadline for determining whether to
review the final ID to Wednesday, November 22, 2006 and extended the
target date for completion of the investigation to Monday, January 8,
2007.
Having examined the relevant portions of the record in this
investigation, including the final ID, the petitions for review, and
the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the
final ID in its entirety, as well as Order No. 10. The Commission has
also determined to extend the target date for completion of the
investigation to January 31, 2007.
The Commission requests briefing based on the evidentiary record on
the issues on review. The Commission is particularly interested in
responses to the following questions:
Regarding Both the '893 and '752 Patents
(1) Does 28 U.S.C. 1498(a) constitute an affirmative defense
available in section 337 investigations? If so, has Acambis properly
and timely raised and maintained this defense? What are the
consequences of having successfully raised and maintained this
defense in a section 337 proceeding?
Regarding the '893 Patent
(1) As a matter of claim construction, does ``virus deposited''
in claim 1 refer to an isolated, purified virus?
(2) Can the virus deposited be identified by sequence alone or
is replication behavior a limitation of the virus deposited? If two
viruses contain identical DNA coding region sequences, are the viral
genomes necessarily identical? If not, e.g., if viruses contained
different inverted terminal repeats, is replication behavior
necessarily the same? What are the consequences of replication
behavior for determining anticipation and infringement of ``virus
deposited * * * and derivatives'' in claim 1?
(3) May a mixture of viruses containing the claimed virus
anticipate claim 1 regardless of the replication behavior of the
mixture? Does MVA-572 or MVA-575 inherently anticipate claim 1 even
if those prior art viruses were not homogenous?
(4) Is MVA-F6 homogenous and does MVA-F6 directly anticipate
claim 1?
Regarding the '752 Patent
(1) Is there any evidence that the terms ``non-replicative'' and
``not capable of reproductive replication'' have different meanings,
despite the use of different words? Should the terms ``non-
replicative'' and ``permit replication'' as they appear in the
asserted claims of the '752 patent be construed in conformance with
the teaching from the specification that ``the term `not capable of
reproductive replication' means that the virus of the present
invention
[[Page 69144]]
exhibits an amplification ratio of less than 1 in human cell lines,
such as 293 (ECACC No. 85120602), 143B (ECACC No. 91112502), HeLa
(ATCC No. CCL-2) and HaCat (Boukamp et al. 1988, J Cell Biol 106(3):
761-71) under the conditions outlined in Example 1 of the present
specification''? '752 patent, col. 2, lines 53-59.
(2) Would a virus be considered to replicate if it sometimes
replicated and other times did not? Is a person of ordinary skill in
the art only concerned with mean values to the exclusion of standard
error analysis? Would a person of ordinary skill in the art find
viral replication if the mean value were above 1 even if the
confidence intervals straddled 1? Would a person of ordinary skill
in the art find no replication if the mean value were below 1 and
the confidence intervals straddled 1?
(3) Is there evidence that MVA-575 possesses a replication ratio
of 1 or greater in HaCaT and other human cells? Is there clear and
convincing evidence that MVA-575 possesses a replication ratio less
than 1 in HaCaT and other human cells?
(4) Given the claim construction in Order No. 31 regarding
``replication,'' would it matter to enablement, written description,
infringement, or domestic industry of the '752 patent whether MVA-BN
replicated less than MVA-575 if MVA-575 still possessed a
replication ratio less than 1 in human cells? Is the ALJ's claim
construction of this term correct to a person of ordinary skill in
the art? Answers to the above should give precise citations to the
record and should take into account the confidence interval.
(5) Figure 1A indicates that the replication rates for certain
MVA viruses are different. This is especially apparent at higher
replication rates. Does the difference in replication rates indicate
that these viruses are not identical? Would the lack of identity be
reflected in the genome? If so, what part of the genome would
reflect the lack of identity? The coding region? The noncoding
region? Both?
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue (1) An order that could result in the exclusion of
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2)
cease and desist orders that could result in respondents being required
to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and
sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in
receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any,
that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from
entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are
adversely affecting it or are likely to do so. For background
information, see the Commission Opinion, In the Matter of Certain
Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-
360.
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) The
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the President has 60
days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this
period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United
States under a bond, in an amount to be determined by the Commission
and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of
the bond that should be imposed.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues under review. The submissions
should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this
investigation, including references to exhibits and testimony.
Additionally, the parties to the investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested persons are encouraged to file
written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Such submissions should address the ALJ's September 6, 2006,
recommended determination on remedy and bonding. Complainant and the
Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is
requested to supply the expiration dates of the patents at issue and
the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported. The
written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later
than the close of business on December 12, 2006. Reply submissions must
be filed no later than the close of business on December 22, 2006. No
further submissions will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the
Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file with the Office of the
Secretary the original and 12 true copies thereof on or before the
deadlines stated above. Any person desiring to submit a document (or
portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request
confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted
such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment
is granted by the Commission will be treated accordingly. All
nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and under sections
210.42-.46, .51(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 CFR 210.42-.46, .51(a)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: November 22, 2006.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-20178 Filed 11-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
