In the Matter of Certain Automated Mechanical Transmission Systems for Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 10112-10114 [05-3970]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10112
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 2, 2005 / Notices
and $9.50 per acre or fraction thereof for
blocks in water depths of 200 or greater
in subsequent GOM sales. These
increased rental rates mostly reflect
inflationary adjustments from the last
time rentals were revised.
Potential Structure for Rental Rates
For future lease sales for the GOM,
MMS is considering using a sliding
scale structure for blocks in water
depths of 400 meters or greater, where
royalty relief is typically offered. MMS
would not use this escalating system in
shallow water blocks of less than 200
meters or for deepwater blocks between
200 meters and less than 400 meters.
However, as noted above, the base level
of the rental rate for leases in water
depths less than 400 meters may be
raised. For leases in water depths of 400
meters or deeper, the table below lists
the possible annual rental rates being
considered, both base levels and
escalated levels.
Year
Rental rate
(per acre
per year or
fraction
thereof)
1 ............................................
2 ............................................
3 ............................................
4 ............................................
5 ............................................
6 ............................................
7 ............................................
8 ............................................
9 ............................................
10 ..........................................
$9.50
9.50
9.50
9.50
9.50
10.50
12.00
13.75
15.50
17.50
Rentals must be paid on or before the
first day of each lease year until a
discovery in paying quantities of oil or
gas, and then at the expiration of each
lease year until the start of royaltybearing production. In water depths of
400 meters or deeper, if a discovery in
paying quantities is made (see 30 CFR
250.115 or 250.116 and NTL No. 2000–
G04 for requirements to demonstrate
well producibility), regardless of the
rental rate in effect before or at the time
of the discovery, the rental rate will
revert to $9.50 per acre per year or
fraction thereof in years subsequent to
such a discovery. Thus, if a discovery in
paying quantities is made in year 8, at
the beginning of which the lessee paid
a rental of $13.75 per acre per year or
fraction thereof, then at the expiration of
each lease year thereafter until the start
of royalty-bearing production, the rental
rate would be fixed at $9.50 per acre per
year or fraction thereof.
MMS would like to receive comments
about both the increase to a new base
level of rentals for all water depths, and
the structure of the escalating rental
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:00 Mar 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
rates that MMS is considering for water
depths 400 meters or greater and their
possible effects on acquisition and
exploration decisions. Would fewer
tracts receive bids? Would the amount
of the individual bids change? Would
escalating rentals at the rate specified
above have any effect on the timing of
exploration? Depending on upcoming
sale results, changing market
conditions, responses to this notice, and
revisions in future projections, a sliding
scale rental structure also might have to
be adjusted. MMS will advise you of its
final decision regarding base rental rates
and any sliding scale rental stipulations
in a future Notice of Lease Sale.
Public Comments Procedures
All submissions received must
include the agency name and refer to
‘‘Increasing Base Rentals and Sliding
Scale Rentals.’ MMS’ practice is to make
comments, including names and
addresses of respondents, available for
public review during regular business
hours. Individual respondents may
request that MMS withhold their
address from the record, which will be
honored to the extent allowable by law.
There may be circumstances in which
MMS would withhold from the record
a respondent’s identity, as allowable by
the law. If you wish us to withhold your
name and/or address, you must state
this prominently at the beginning of
your comment. However, MMS will not
consider anonymous comments. Except
for proprietary information, MMS will
make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Dated: January 25, 2005.
Thomas Readinger,
Associate Director for Offshore Minerals
Management.
[FR Doc. 05–4032 Filed 3–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–503]
In the Matter of Certain Automated
Mechanical Transmission Systems for
Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks
and Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Decision Not To Review a
Final Initial Determination Finding a
Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930; Request for Written
Submissions on Remedy, the Public
Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review the presiding administrative law
judge’s (ALJ) initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) in the above-captioned
investigation finding a violation of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Notice is also hereby given that the
Commission is requesting briefing on
the issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rodney Maze, Esq., 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
patent-based section 337 investigation
was instituted by the Commission on
January 7, 2004, based on a complaint
filed by Eaton Corporation (‘‘Eaton’’) of
Cleveland, Ohio. 69 FR 937 (January 7,
2004). The complainant, as
supplemented, alleged violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in
the importation into the United States,
the sale for importation, and the sale
within the United States after
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 2, 2005 / Notices
importation of certain automated
mechanical transmission systems for
medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks,
and components thereof, by reason of
infringement of claim 15 of U.S. Patent
No. 4,899,279 (‘‘the ‘279 patent’’);
claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,335,566
(‘‘the ‘566 patent’’); claims 2–4 and 6–
16 of U.S. Patent No. 5,272,939 (‘‘the
‘939 patent’’); claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent
No. 5,624,350 (‘‘the ‘350 patent’’);
claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 11, 13, 14, 16 and
17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,149,545 (‘‘the
‘545 patent’’); and claims 1–16 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,066,071 (‘‘the ‘071 patent’’).
The complaint and notice of
investigation named three respondents
ZF Meritor, LLC (‘‘ZF Meritor) of
Maxton, North Carolina, ZF
Friedrichshafen AG (‘‘ZFAG’’) of
Freidrichshafen, Germany, and
ArvinMeritor, Inc. of Troy, Michigan.
On July 21, 2004, the Commission
issued a notice indicating that it had
determined not to review the ALJ’s
initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No.
20) terminating the investigation as to
the ‘071 patent and as to claims 2, 3,
and 5–20 of the ‘566 patent, claims 4,
7, and 12 of the ‘350 patent, and claims
4, 8–9, and 14 of the ‘545 patent.
On August 11, 2004, the Commission
issued a notice (indicating that it had
determined not to review the ALJ’s ID
(Order No. 31) terminating the
investigation as to the ‘939 patent and
as to claims 10, 11, and 13 of the ‘350
patent.
On August 16, 2004, the Commission
issued a notice indicating that it had
determined not to review the ALJ’s ID
(Order No. 28) that Eaton has satisfied
the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement as to certain
articles it alleges practice the patents at
issue in this investigation.
On August 23, 2004, the Commission
issued a notice indicating that it had
determined not to review the ALJ’s ID
(Order No. 30) that Eaton did not meet
the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement as to the
remaining claims, claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8,
and 9, of the ‘350 patent, thus
terminating the investigation as to that
patent.
On September 17, 2004, the
Commission issued a notice indicating
that it had determined not to review the
ALJ’s ID (Order No. 38) granting Eaton’s
partial summary determination that the
importation requirement has been met.
On September 23, 2004, the
Commission issued a notice indicating
that it had determined not to review the
ALJ’s ID (Order No. 45) granting Eaton’s
motion for summary determination that
it satisfies the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement of
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:00 Mar 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
section 337 as to its medium-duty
automated transmissions. The
Commission also issued a notice on
September 23, 2004, indicating that it
had determined not to review ALJ’s ID
(Order No. 55) granting Eaton’s motion
for partial termination of the
investigation as to claim 1 of the ‘566
patent.
On January 7, 2005, the ALJ issued his
final ID on violation and his
recommended determination on
remedy. The ALJ found a violation of
section 337 by reason of infringement of
claim 15 of the ‘279 patent by
respondents. He found no violation of
section 337 regarding the ‘566 and the
‘545 patents. Petitions for review were
filed by Eaton, the respondents, and the
Commission investigative attorney on
January 21, 2005. All parties filed
responses to the petitions on January 28,
2005.
Having examined the record in this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined not to review the ID, thereby
finding a violation of section 337.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that
could result in the exclusion of
respondents’ FreedomLine
transmissions from entry into the
United States, and/or issue one or more
cease and desist orders that could result
in the respondents being required to
cease and desist from engaging in unfair
acts in the importation and sale of
FreedomLine transmissions.
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, see In the Matter of Certain
Devices for Connecting Computers via
Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360,
USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994)
(Commission Opinion).
When 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
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10113
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. 19 U.S.C.
§ 1337(j). During this period, the subject
articles would be entitled to enter the
United States under bond, in an amount
determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury. Id. 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, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
parties are encouraged to file written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the January
7, 2005, recommended determinations
by the ALJ on the issuance of remedy
and bonding. Complainant and the
Commission investigative attorney are
also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission’s
consideration and to state the date on
which the ‘279 patent will expire. The
written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on March 7, 2005.
Reply submissions must be filed no later
than the close of business on March 14,
2005. No further submissions on these
issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document and 12
true copies thereof on or before the
deadlines stated above with the Office
of the Secretary. 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 section 201.6 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for
which confidential treatment by the
Commission is sought will be treated
accordingly. All non-confidential
written submissions will be available for
public inspection at the Office of the
Secretary.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
10114
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 2, 2005 / Notices
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in
sections 210.42, 210.43, and 210.50 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42, 210.43, and
210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 24, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–3970 Filed 3–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Proposed Final Judgment
Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures
and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h),
the United States hereby publishes
below the comments received on the
proposed Final Judgment in United
States v. Cingular Wireless Corp. et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:04CV01850 (RBW),
filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, together
with the United States’ response to the
comments on February 17, 2005.
Copies of the comments and the
response are available for inspection at
Room 200 of the Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division, 325 Seventh Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20530, telephone
(202) 514–2481, and at the Office of the
Clerk of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, E. Barrett
Prettyman United States Courthouse,
333 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20001. Copies of any of
these materials may be obtained upon
request and payment of a copying fee.
J. Robert Kramer II,
Director of Operations.
In the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia
United States of America, State of
Connecticut and State of Texas,
Plaintiffs, v. Cingular Wireless
Corporation, SBC Communications Inc.,
BellSouth Corporation and AT&T
Wireless Services, Inc., Defendants;
Plaintiff United States’s Response to
Public Comments
Civil No. 1:04CV01850 (RBW)
Filed: February 17, 2005
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
15 U.SC. 16(b)–(h) (‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney
Act’’), the United States hereby
responds to the public comments
received regarding the proposal Final
Judgment in this case. After careful
consideration of the comments, the
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:00 Mar 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
United States continues to believe that
the proposed Final Judgment will
provide an effective and appropriate
remedy for the antitrust violation
alleged in the Complaint. The United
States will move the Court for entry of
the proposed Final Judgment after the
public comments and this Response has
been published in the Federal Register,
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(d).
On October 25, 2004, plaintiffs filed
the Complaint in this matter alleging
that the proposed acquisition of AT&T
Wireless Services, Inc. (‘‘AT&T
Wireless’’) by Cingular Wireless Corp.
(‘‘Cingular’’) and its parents, SBC
Communications Inc. (‘‘SBC’’) and
BellSouth Corp. (‘‘BellSouth’’), would
violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 18. Simultaneously with the
filing of the Complaint, the plaintiffs
filed a proposed Final Judgment 1 and a
Preservation of Assets Stipulation and
Order signed by plaintiffs and
defendants consenting to the entry of
the proposed Final Judgment after
compliance with the requirements of the
Tunney Act. Pursuant to those
requirements, the United States filed a
Competitive Impact Statement (‘‘CIS’’)
in this Court on October 29, 2004;
published in the proposed Final
Judgment and CIS in the Federal
Register on November 15, 2004, see 69
FR 65633 (2004); and published a
summary of the terms of the proposed
Final Judgment and CIS, together with
directions for the submission of written
comments relating to the proposed Final
Judgment, in the Washington Post for
seven days beginning on November 10,
2004 and ending on November 16, 2004.
The 60-day period for public comments
ended on January 15, 2005, and two
comments were received as described
below and attached hereto.
I. Background
As explained more fully in the
Complaint and CIS, this transaction
substantially lessened competition in
mobile wireless telecommunications
services and mobile wireless broadband
services in 13 geographic markets,
located in 11 states. To restore
competition in these markets, the
1 A corrected version of the proposed Final
Judgment was filed on November 3, 2004. The only
change was the addition of the underlined language
to the last sentence of Section II.F: ‘‘Plaintiff United
States in its sole discretion may approve this
request if it is demonstrated that the retained
minority interest will become irrevocably and
entirely passive, so long as defendants own the
minority interests, and will not significantly
diminish competition.’’
The corrected version is what was published in
the Federal Register. None of the public comments
addressed this aspect of the proposed Final
Judgment.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposed Final Judgment, if entered,
would require Cingular to divest (1)
AT&T Wireless’s wireless business in 5
geographic markets (Connecticut RSA–1
(CMA 357), Kentucky RSA–1 (CMA
443), Oklahoma City (CMA 045),
Oklahoma RSA–3 (CMA 598), and Texas
RSA–11 (CMA 662)); (2) minority
interests in other wireless service
providers in 5 geographic markets
(Shreveport, LA (including CMAs 100,
219, 454, 455, and 456), Pittsfield, MA
(CMA 213), Athens, GA (CMA 234), St.
Joseph, MO (CMA 275), and Topeka, KS
(CMA 179)); and (3) 10 MHz of
contiguous PCS spectrum in 3
geographic markets (Detroit, MI (BTA
112), Dallas, TX (CMA 009), and
Knoxville, TN (BTA 232)). Entry of the
proposed Final Judgment would
terminate this action, except that the
Court would retain jurisdiction to
construe, modify, or enforce the
provisions of the proposed Final
Judgment and punish violations thereof.
II. Legal Standard Governing the
Court’s Public Interest Determination
Upon the publication of the public
comments and this Response, the
United States will have fully complied
with the Tunney Act and will move the
Court for entry of the proposed Final
Judgment as being ‘‘in the public
interest.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e). The Court, in
making its public interest
determination, shall consider:
(A) the competitive impact of such
judgment, including termination of alleged
violations, provisions for enforcement and
modification, duration or relief sought,
anticipated effects of alternative remedies
actually considered, whether its terms are
ambiguous, and any other competitive
considerations bearing upon the adequacy of
such judgment that the court deems
necessary to a determination of whether the
consent judgment is in the public interest;
and
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment
upon competition in the relevant market or
markets, upon the public generally and
individuals alleging specific injury from the
violations set forth in the complaint
including considerations of the public
benefit, it any, to be derived from a
determination of the issues at trial.
15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). As the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit has held, the Tunney Act
permits a court to consider, among other
things, the relationship between the
remedy secured and the specific
allegations set forth in the government’s
compliant, whether the proposed Final
Judgment is sufficiently clear, whether
enforcement mechanisms are sufficient,
and whether the proposed Final
Judgment may positively harm third
parties. See United States v. Microsoft
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10112-10114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3970]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-503]
In the Matter of Certain Automated Mechanical Transmission
Systems for Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks and Components Thereof;
Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review a Final Initial
Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the 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 not to review the presiding administrative
law judge's (ALJ) initial determination (``ID'') in the above-captioned
investigation finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930. Notice is also hereby given that the Commission is requesting
briefing on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rodney Maze, Esq., 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 patent-based section 337 investigation
was instituted by the Commission on January 7, 2004, based on a
complaint filed by Eaton Corporation (``Eaton'') of Cleveland, Ohio. 69
FR 937 (January 7, 2004). The complainant, as supplemented, alleged
violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation
into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after
[[Page 10113]]
importation of certain automated mechanical transmission systems for
medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks, and components thereof, by reason of
infringement of claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 4,899,279 (``the `279
patent''); claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,335,566 (``the `566
patent''); claims 2-4 and 6-16 of U.S. Patent No. 5,272,939 (``the `939
patent''); claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 5,624,350 (``the `350
patent''); claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,149,545 (``the `545 patent''); and claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No.
6,066,071 (``the `071 patent'').
The complaint and notice of investigation named three respondents
ZF Meritor, LLC (``ZF Meritor) of Maxton, North Carolina, ZF
Friedrichshafen AG (``ZFAG'') of Freidrichshafen, Germany, and
ArvinMeritor, Inc. of Troy, Michigan.
On July 21, 2004, the Commission issued a notice indicating that it
had determined not to review the ALJ's initial determination (``ID'')
(Order No. 20) terminating the investigation as to the `071 patent and
as to claims 2, 3, and 5-20 of the `566 patent, claims 4, 7, and 12 of
the `350 patent, and claims 4, 8-9, and 14 of the `545 patent.
On August 11, 2004, the Commission issued a notice (indicating that
it had determined not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 31) terminating
the investigation as to the `939 patent and as to claims 10, 11, and 13
of the `350 patent.
On August 16, 2004, the Commission issued a notice indicating that
it had determined not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 28) that Eaton
has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement
as to certain articles it alleges practice the patents at issue in this
investigation.
On August 23, 2004, the Commission issued a notice indicating that
it had determined not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 30) that Eaton
did not meet the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement
as to the remaining claims, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 9, of the `350
patent, thus terminating the investigation as to that patent.
On September 17, 2004, the Commission issued a notice indicating
that it had determined not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 38)
granting Eaton's partial summary determination that the importation
requirement has been met.
On September 23, 2004, the Commission issued a notice indicating
that it had determined not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 45)
granting Eaton's motion for summary determination that it satisfies the
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement of section 337 as
to its medium-duty automated transmissions. The Commission also issued
a notice on September 23, 2004, indicating that it had determined not
to review ALJ's ID (Order No. 55) granting Eaton's motion for partial
termination of the investigation as to claim 1 of the `566 patent.
On January 7, 2005, the ALJ issued his final ID on violation and
his recommended determination on remedy. The ALJ found a violation of
section 337 by reason of infringement of claim 15 of the `279 patent by
respondents. He found no violation of section 337 regarding the `566
and the `545 patents. Petitions for review were filed by Eaton, the
respondents, and the Commission investigative attorney on January 21,
2005. All parties filed responses to the petitions on January 28, 2005.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
the Commission has determined not to review the ID, thereby finding a
violation of section 337.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that could result in the exclusion of
respondents' FreedomLine transmissions from entry into the United
States, and/or issue one or more cease and desist orders that could
result in the respondents being required to cease and desist from
engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of FreedomLine
transmissions. 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, see In the Matter
of Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv.
No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission
Opinion).
When 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. 19 U.S.C. Sec.
1337(j). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to
enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the
Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Id. 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, interested
government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to
file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding. Such submissions should address the January 7, 2005,
recommended determinations by the ALJ on the issuance of remedy and
bonding. Complainant and the Commission investigative attorney are also
requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's
consideration and to state the date on which the `279 patent will
expire. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be
filed no later than close of business on March 7, 2005. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on March
14, 2005. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted
unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with
the Office of the Secretary. 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 section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by
the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. All non-
confidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section
[[Page 10114]]
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in
sections 210.42, 210.43, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42, 210.43, and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 24, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-3970 Filed 3-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
