Certain Sortation Systems, Parts Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Rescind a Limited Exclusion Order, 11692-11693 [05-4570]

Download as PDF 11692 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Notices The RAC will be discussing their role in the process of reviewing future Resource Management Plans (RMP); improving RMP communications; listening to various presentations from the Natural Resources Committee, Utah’s Lands Policy Group, and an overview of Richfield Field Office’s RMP. All meetings are open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating public. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: March 2, 2005. Sally Wisely, State Director. [FR Doc. 05–4639 Filed 3–8–05; 8:45 am] Commission’s schedule in this review is otherwise unchanged. No party has objected to the Commission’s schedule, as revised. For further information concerning this review, see the Commission’s notices cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: March 3, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–4571 Filed 3–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION BILLING CODE 7020–02–P [Investigation No. 731–TA–101 (Second Review)] INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Greige Polyester/Cotton Printcloth From China [Inv. No. 337–TA–460] International Trade Commission. ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject review. Certain Sortation Systems, Parts Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Rescind a Limited Exclusion Order AGENCY: EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Burns (202) 205–2501, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (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 review may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 25, 2004, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject review (69 FR 53465, September 1, 2004), and revised its schedule on January 28, 2005 (70 FR 6036, February 4, 2005). The Commission is again revising its schedule; the Commission’s hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on April 5, 2005, and the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is April 12, 2005. The VerDate jul<14>2003 20:21 Mar 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Gail SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to rescind the limited exclusion order in the above-captioned investigation. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 This patent-based section 337 investigation was instituted by the Commission based on a complaint filed by Rapistan Systems Advertising Corp. and Siemens Dematic Corp., both of Grand Rapids, Michigan. 66 FR 38741 (July 25, 2001). The complaint named Vanderlande Industries Nederland BV of the Netherlands, and Vanderlande Industries of Atlanta, Georgia (collectively ‘‘Vanderlande’’) as respondents. Complainants alleged that Vanderlande had violated section 337 by importing into the United States, selling for importation, and selling within the United States after importation certain sortation systems, or components thereof, covered by independent claims 1, 13, 23, 30, and 42 and dependent claims 2–4, 8, 9, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 33, 35–37, 39, 43, 45– 47, and 49 of U.S. Patent No. 5,127, 510 (‘‘the ’510 patent’’), owned by Rapistan Systems and exclusively licensed to Siemens Dematic. On April 5, 2002, complainants filed an unopposed motion asking for the termination of the investigation with respect to claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 18, 24, 36, 37, 29, 46, 47, and 49. On May 16, 2002, the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) granted the motion in an ID (Order No. 32) and the Commission determined not to review the ID. The claims of the ’510 patent at issue were therefore claims 1, 4, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35, 42, 43, and 45. The complaint further alleged that an industry in the United States exists, as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. On October 22, 2002, the ALJ issued his final initial determination (ID) on violation and his recommended determination on remedy. The ALJ found a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of claims 1 and 4 of the ’510 patent. He also found that the ’510 patent is not invalid or unenforceable. With respect to remedy, the ALJ recommended issuance of a limited exclusion order barring importation of the respondents’ accused Mark 2 Posisorter sortation system and its parts and components. On November 4, 2002, Vanderlande and the Commission investigative attorney (IA) petitioned for review of portions of the ALJ’s final ID. Rapistan submitted a contingent petition for review asking that the Commission review certain issues if it decided to review the ID. All parties filed responses to the petitions on November 12, 2002. On December 10, 2002, the Commission determined to review the ID and requested submissions regarding the issues under review as well as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Notices remedy, the public interest and bonding. On January 27, 2003, the Commission issued a notice indicating that it had determined that there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and had issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of the infringing sortation systems, parts and components thereof, manufactured abroad by Vanderlande. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s determination on May 3, 2004. See Vanderlande Indus. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 366 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004). On February 2, 2005, Vanderlande and complainants filed a joint petition to rescind the remedial order under Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1) on the basis of a settlement agreement between the parties. The parties asserted that their settlement agreement constituted ‘‘changed conditions of fact or law’’ sufficient to justify rescission of the order under Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.76(a)(1). The IA filed a response in support of the motion on February 14, 2005. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Commission has determined that the settlement agreement satisfies the requirement of Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.76(a)(1), that there be changed conditions of fact or law. The Commission therefore has issued an order rescinding the limited exclusion order previously issued in this investigation. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and § 210.76(a)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.76(a)(1)). Issued: March 3, 2005. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–4570 Filed 3–8–05; 8:45 am] 2. Cancellations. ATF O 1100.9A, Delegation Order—Designation of Acting Supervisory Officials dated October 7, 1980 and ATF F 1100.1, Temporary Assignment Designation. 3. Authorities. Pursuant to authorities vested in the Director, ATF, by Title 6 U.S.C. 531 and 28 CFR O.130–0.133. 4. Designations. a. An official e-mail notification is required for supervisors to designate a subordinate employee to act in the event of their absence or in a subordinate supervisory position in which such position becomes vacant. At a minimum, the official e-mail notification must be sent to individuals who report directly to the supervisor; the individual to whom the supervisor reports; and any other individual(s) who need to be advised. An official e-mail notification is not required if there exists a document or order that designates a temporary acting official. b. In the event of an emergency, ATF O 1100.59G, Delegation Order— Emergency Order of Succession and Delegation of Authority, designates the order of succession for Acting Director to ensure the continuity of Bureau functions. Under these circumstances no e-mail notification is required. 5. Retention Requirements. Acting designations must be retained in accordance with ATF O 1345.1, Records Management Program and Records Control Schedule 101, item 2 (Headquarters) and ATF Records Control Schedule 201, item 1 (Field). 6. Redelegation. The authority to designate acting supervisory officials is delegated to all Bureau personnel in supervisory positions and may not be redelegated. 7. Questions. Questions regarding this delegation order may be addressed to the Chief, Document Services Branch at (202) 927–8930. Dated: February 18, 2005. Carl J. Truscott, Director. [FR Doc. 05–4606 Filed 3–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [Docket No. ATF 17N; ATF O 1150.13] DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Delegation Order—Designation of Acting Supervisory Officials RAM, INC. d/b/a American Wholesale Distribution Corp.; Denial of Registration 1. Purpose. The purpose of this delegation order is to grant supervisors authority to designate acting supervisory officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). On July 23, 2004, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to RAM Inc., d/b/a American Wholesale Distribution VerDate jul<14>2003 18:06 Mar 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11693 Corporation (RAM), proposing to deny its June 5, 2003, application for DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of List I chemicals. The Order to Show Cause alleged that granting RAM’s application would be inconsistent with the public interest, as that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(h). The order also notified RAM that should no request for a hearing be filed within 30 days, its hearing right would be deemed waived. According to the DEA investigative file, the Order to Show Cause was sent by certified mail to RAM at its proposed registered location at 3300 Pleasant Valley Lane, Suite C, Arlington, Texas 76015. It was received on August 2, 2004, and DEA has not received a request for a hearing or any other reply from RAM or anyone purporting to represent the company in this matter. Therefore, the Deputy Administrator of DEA, finding that (1) thirty days have passed since delivery of the Order to Show Cause, and (2) no request for a hearing having been received, concludes that RAM has waived its hearing right. See Aqui Enterprises, 67 FR 12576 (2002). After considering relevant material from the investigative file, the Deputy Administrator now enters her final order without a hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1309.53(c) and (d) and 1316.67. The Deputy Administrator finds as follows. List I chemicals are those that may be used in the manufacture of a controlled substance in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. 21 U.S.C. 802(34); 21 CFR 1300.02(a). Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are List I chemicals commonly used to illegally manufacture methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance. As noted in previous DEA orders, methamphetamine is an extremely potent central nervous system stimulant, and its abuse is a persistent and growing problem in the United States. See e.g., Direct Wholesale, 69 FR 11654 (2004); Branex, Inc., 69 FR 8682 (2004); Yemen Wholesale Tobacco and Candy Supply, Inc., 67 FR 9997 (2002); Denver Wholesale, 67 FR 99986 (2002). The Deputy Administrator’s review of the investigative file reveals that RAM’s owner and only officer is Mr. Mohamad Khorchid. On or about June 5, 2003, an application was submitted by Mr. Khorchid on behalf of RAM, seeking registration to distribute ephedrine and pseudoephedrine List I chemical products. It identified the applicant as ‘‘RAM INC American Wholesale Dist. Co.’’ Prior to RAM’s February 7, 2003, incorporation, Mr. Khorchid and his wife owned and operated American E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11692-11693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4570]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-460]


Certain Sortation Systems, Parts Thereof, and Products Containing 
Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Rescind a Limited Exclusion 
Order

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to rescind the limited exclusion order in the 
above-captioned investigation.

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 based on a complaint filed by Rapistan 
Systems Advertising Corp. and Siemens Dematic Corp., both of Grand 
Rapids, Michigan. 66 FR 38741 (July 25, 2001). The complaint named 
Vanderlande Industries Nederland BV of the Netherlands, and Vanderlande 
Industries of Atlanta, Georgia (collectively ``Vanderlande'') as 
respondents.
    Complainants alleged that Vanderlande had violated section 337 by 
importing into the United States, selling for importation, and selling 
within the United States after importation certain sortation systems, 
or components thereof, covered by independent claims 1, 13, 23, 30, and 
42 and dependent claims 2-4, 8, 9, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 33, 35-
37, 39, 43, 45-47, and 49 of U.S. Patent No. 5,127, 510 (``the '510 
patent''), owned by Rapistan Systems and exclusively licensed to 
Siemens Dematic. On April 5, 2002, complainants filed an unopposed 
motion asking for the termination of the investigation with respect to 
claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 18, 24, 36, 37, 29, 46, 47, and 49. On May 16, 2002, 
the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) granted the motion in an 
ID (Order No. 32) and the Commission determined not to review the ID. 
The claims of the '510 patent at issue were therefore claims 1, 4, 13, 
17, 20, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35, 42, 43, and 45. The complaint 
further alleged that an industry in the United States exists, as 
required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
    On October 22, 2002, the ALJ issued his final initial determination 
(ID) on violation and his recommended determination on remedy. The ALJ 
found a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of claims 1 
and 4 of the '510 patent. He also found that the '510 patent is not 
invalid or unenforceable. With respect to remedy, the ALJ recommended 
issuance of a limited exclusion order barring importation of the 
respondents' accused Mark 2 Posisorter sortation system and its parts 
and components. On November 4, 2002, Vanderlande and the Commission 
investigative attorney (IA) petitioned for review of portions of the 
ALJ's final ID. Rapistan submitted a contingent petition for review 
asking that the Commission review certain issues if it decided to 
review the ID. All parties filed responses to the petitions on November 
12, 2002.
    On December 10, 2002, the Commission determined to review the ID 
and requested submissions regarding the issues under review as well as

[[Page 11693]]

remedy, the public interest and bonding. On January 27, 2003, the 
Commission issued a notice indicating that it had determined that there 
is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 
and had issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of 
the infringing sortation systems, parts and components thereof, 
manufactured abroad by Vanderlande. The Federal Circuit affirmed the 
Commission's determination on May 3, 2004. See Vanderlande Indus. v. 
Int'l Trade Comm'n, 366 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
    On February 2, 2005, Vanderlande and complainants filed a joint 
petition to rescind the remedial order under Commission Rule 
210.76(a)(1) on the basis of a settlement agreement between the 
parties. The parties asserted that their settlement agreement 
constituted ``changed conditions of fact or law'' sufficient to justify 
rescission of the order under Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 
210.76(a)(1). The IA filed a response in support of the motion on 
February 14, 2005.
    Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Commission has 
determined that the settlement agreement satisfies the requirement of 
Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.76(a)(1), that there be 
changed conditions of fact or law. The Commission therefore has issued 
an order rescinding the limited exclusion order previously issued in 
this investigation.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and Sec.  210.76(a)(1) of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.76(a)(1)).

    Issued: March 3, 2005.

    By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-4570 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.