In the Matter of Certain Foam Masking Tape; Notice of Commission Decision Not to Review an Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Written Submissions on Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding, 41787-41788 [05-14289]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 20, 2005 / Notices
recreation, as well as, active research,
documentation, and interpretation of
cultural resources. This alternative calls
for a contact station staffed 7 days a
week. Alternative C calls for restoration
of habitats to historic conditions, and
allowance of natural processes to
manage habitats; provides for increased
protection of listed species, and deemphasizing public use opportunities at
the refuge (such as no fishing and
hunting, except by special permits).
The Proposed Action was selected
because it best meets the purposes and
goals of Lost Trail NWR, as well as the
goals of the National Wildlife Refuge
System. The Proposed Action will
benefit migrating and nesting waterfowl
and neotropical migrants, shore birds,
federally listed species, large ungulates,
as well as improvements in water
quality from riparian habitat restoration.
Environmental education and
partnerships will result in improved
wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities. Cultural and historical
resources will be protected.
Dated: May 27, 2005.
Ron Shupe,
Acting Regional Director, Region 6, Denver,
CO.
[FR Doc. 05–14223 Filed 7–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
In the Matter of Certain Foam Masking
Tape; Notice of Commission Decision
Not to Review an Initial Determination
Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Schedule for Written Submissions on
Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding
[Inv. No. 337–TA–528]
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 an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 41) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
finding a violation of section 337 in the
above-captioned investigation. 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:
Michael Diehl, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 205–
3095. Copies of all nonconfidential
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:24 Jul 19, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 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
the matter can be obtained by contacting
the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810.
This
patent-based section 337 investigation
was instituted by the Commission based
on a complaint filed by 3M Company,
3M Innovative Properties Company, and
Mr. Jean Silvestre (collectively, ‘‘3M’’),
which was subsequently amended. 70
FR 386 (Jan. 4, 2005). The complaint, as
amended, alleged a violation of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation and/or sale within
the United States after importation, of
certain foam masking tape by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patents Nos. 4,996,092 (‘‘the ‘092
patent’’) and 5,260,097 (‘‘the ‘097
patent’’). The notice of investigation
named 13 respondents.
On February 10, 2005, 3M filed a
motion to amend the complaint and
notice of investigation to add two
respondents. On March 1, 2005, the ALJ
issued an ID (Order No. 14) granting the
motion. No party petitioned for review.
On March 29, 2005, the Commission
issued a notice of its determination not
to review the ID.
Between February and June of 2005,
the investigation was terminated as to
14 of the 15 respondents on the basis of
settlement agreements and consent
orders, or based on consent orders
alone. With respect to Jevtec, Ltd.—the
sole respondent as to which the
investigation was not terminated—3M
moved on May 17, 2005, for an order
directing Jevtec to show cause why it
should not be found in default for
failure to respond to the amended
complaint and notice of investigation.
3M also requested the issuance of an ID
finding Jevtec in default if Jevtec failed
to show such cause.
On May 26, 2005, 3M moved for a
summary determination of a violation of
section 337. On June 6, 2005, the
Investigative Attorney (IA), filed a
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41787
response in support of the motion for
summary determination.
On June 7, 2005, the ALJ issued Order
No. 36, ordering Jevtec to show cause
why it should not be held in default no
later than June 14, 2005. Jevtec did not
file a response to the order, an answer
to the complaint, or a notice of
appearance within the time permitted.
On June 15, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID
(Order No. 39) finding Jevtec in default.
No party petitioned for review of the ID.
On July 11, 2005, the Commission
issued a notice of its determination not
to review that ID.
On June 21, 2005, the ALJ issued the
subject ID (Order No. 41), granting 3M’s
motion for a summary determination of
a violation of section 337. The ID notes
that only the ‘097 patent is at issue in
the summary determination, because the
investigation has been terminated with
respect to all respondents charged with
infringement of the ‘092 patent. No
party petitioned for review of the ID.
The Commission has determined not to
review this ID.
As to remedy, the ALJ recommended
the issuance of a general exclusion
order. He also recommended that the
bond permitting temporary importation
during the Presidential review period be
set at 100 percent of the value of the
infringing imported product.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that
could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the
United States. 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, it should so indicate and
provide information establishing that
activities involving other types of entry
either are adversely affecting it or 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 in this
investigation include the effect that an
exclusion order 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
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
41788
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 20, 2005 / Notices
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 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, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
parties are encouraged to file written
submissions on remedy, the public
interest, and bonding. Such submissions
should address the June 21, 2005,
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding. Complainants
and the Commission’s investigative
attorney are also requested to submit
proposed orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainants are further
requested to state the expiration date of
the patent at issue and the HTSUS
numbers under which the infringing
goods are imported. Main written
submissions and proposed orders must
be filed no later than close of business
on July 25, 2005. Reply submissions, if
any, must be filed no later than the close
of business on August 1, 2005. No
further submissions on these issues will
be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file with the Office of the Secretary
the original document and 14 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 that 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 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, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and sections
210.42 and 210.50 of the Commission’s
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:38 Jul 19, 2005
Jkt 205001
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR
210.42 and 210.50.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 15, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–14289 Filed 7–19–05; 8:45 am]
(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no.
(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation
number (202) 514–1547. If requesting a
copy of the proposed Consent Judgment,
please so note and enclose a check in
the amount of $3.00 (25 cent per page
reproduction cost) payable to the U.S.
Treasury.
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Consent
Judgment Pursuant to Clean Air Act
Notice is hereby given that on June
24, 2005, a proposed Consent Judgment
in United States v. Advanced Coating
Techniques, Inc., Civil Action No. CV–
01–5414, was lodged with the United
States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.
The proposed Consent Judgment will
resolve the United States’ claims under
Section 113 of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 7413, on behalf of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
against defendant Advanced Coating
Techniques, Inc. (‘‘Advanced Coating’’)
in connection with alleged violations of
Section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C 7412,
and the National Emission Standards for
Chromium Emissions from Hard and
Decorative Chromium Electroplating
and Chromium Anodizing Tanks, 40
CFR part 63, subpart N. The Consent
Judgment requires Advanced Coating to
pay $200,000 in civil penalties.
The Department of Justice will receive
for a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of this publication comments
relating to the proposed Consent
Judgment. Comments should be
addressed to the Assistant Attorney
General of the Environment and Natural
Resources Division, Department of
Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and
should refer to require v. Advanced
Coating Techniques, Inc., D.J. No. 90–5–
2–1–07275.
The proposed Consent Judgment may
be examined at the Office of the United
States Attorney, Eastern District of New
York, One Pierrepont Plaza, 14th Fl.,
Brooklyn, New York 11201, and at the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, New
York, New York 10007–1866. During the
public comment period, the proposed
Consent Judgment may also be
examined on the following Department
of Justice Web site, https://
www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html. A copy
of the proposed Consent Judgment may
be obtained by mail from the Consent
Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a
request to Tonia Fleetwood
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Ronald G. Gluck,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 05–14273 Filed 7–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree
Under Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act
Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby
given that on July 1, 2005, a proposed
Consent Decree in United States v.
Gerald Pelletier, Inc., Civil No. 1:05–cv–
92, was lodged with the United States
District Court for the District of Maine.
This action concerns the Hows Corner
Superfund Site (‘‘Site’’), which is
located in Plymouth, Maine. In this
action, the United States asserted claims
against Gerald Pelletier, Inc., under
section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9607(a), for recovery of response costs
incurred regarding the Site. The State of
Maine also filed a complaint against
Gerald Pelletier, Inc., in which it
asserted claims under section 107(a) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), and under
the Maine Uncontrolled Sites Law, 38
M.R.S.A. section 1361 et seq., for
recovery of response costs incurred
regarding the Site. The proposed
consent decree provides for Gerald
Pelletier, Inc. to pay $17,638 to the
United States and $3,632 to the State of
Maine in reimbursement of past
response costs at the Site. The decree
provides that the United States and the
State of Maine covenant not to sue
Gerald Pelletier, Inc. under section
107(a) of CERCLA, and the State of
Maine covenants not to sue Gerald
Pelletier, Inc., under 38 M.R.S.A.
section 1367, for past response costs
regarding the Site.
The Department of Justice will receive
for a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of this publication comments
relating to the Consent Decree.
Comments should be addressed to the
Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources
Division, PO Box 7611, U.S. Department
of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611,
and should refer to United States v.
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41787-41788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14289]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
In the Matter of Certain Foam Masking Tape; Notice of Commission
Decision Not to Review an Initial Determination Finding a Violation of
Section 337; Schedule for Written Submissions on Remedy, Public
Interest, and Bonding
[Inv. No. 337-TA-528]
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 an initial determination
(``ID'') (Order No. 41) issued by the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') finding a violation of section 337 in the above-
captioned investigation. 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: Michael Diehl, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 205-3095. Copies of all
nonconfidential 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 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 the 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 3M
Company, 3M Innovative Properties Company, and Mr. Jean Silvestre
(collectively, ``3M''), which was subsequently amended. 70 FR 386 (Jan.
4, 2005). The complaint, as amended, alleged a violation of section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States,
the sale for importation and/or sale within the United States after
importation, of certain foam masking tape by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patents Nos. 4,996,092 (``the `092 patent'') and
5,260,097 (``the `097 patent''). The notice of investigation named 13
respondents.
On February 10, 2005, 3M filed a motion to amend the complaint and
notice of investigation to add two respondents. On March 1, 2005, the
ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 14) granting the motion. No party
petitioned for review. On March 29, 2005, the Commission issued a
notice of its determination not to review the ID.
Between February and June of 2005, the investigation was terminated
as to 14 of the 15 respondents on the basis of settlement agreements
and consent orders, or based on consent orders alone. With respect to
Jevtec, Ltd.--the sole respondent as to which the investigation was not
terminated--3M moved on May 17, 2005, for an order directing Jevtec to
show cause why it should not be found in default for failure to respond
to the amended complaint and notice of investigation. 3M also requested
the issuance of an ID finding Jevtec in default if Jevtec failed to
show such cause.
On May 26, 2005, 3M moved for a summary determination of a
violation of section 337. On June 6, 2005, the Investigative Attorney
(IA), filed a response in support of the motion for summary
determination.
On June 7, 2005, the ALJ issued Order No. 36, ordering Jevtec to
show cause why it should not be held in default no later than June 14,
2005. Jevtec did not file a response to the order, an answer to the
complaint, or a notice of appearance within the time permitted. On June
15, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 39) finding Jevtec in
default. No party petitioned for review of the ID. On July 11, 2005,
the Commission issued a notice of its determination not to review that
ID.
On June 21, 2005, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 41),
granting 3M's motion for a summary determination of a violation of
section 337. The ID notes that only the `097 patent is at issue in the
summary determination, because the investigation has been terminated
with respect to all respondents charged with infringement of the `092
patent. No party petitioned for review of the ID. The Commission has
determined not to review this ID.
As to remedy, the ALJ recommended the issuance of a general
exclusion order. He also recommended that the bond permitting temporary
importation during the Presidential review period be set at 100 percent
of the value of the infringing imported product.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the United States. 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, it should so indicate and provide
information establishing that activities involving other types of entry
either are adversely affecting it or 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 in this investigation include the
effect that an exclusion order 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
[[Page 41788]]
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 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, interested
government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to
file written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
Such submissions should address the June 21, 2005, recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainants and the
Commission's investigative attorney are also requested to submit
proposed orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are
further requested to state the expiration date of the patent at issue
and the HTSUS numbers under which the infringing goods are imported.
Main written submissions and proposed orders must be filed no later
than close of business on July 25, 2005. Reply submissions, if any,
must be filed no later than the close of business on August 1, 2005. No
further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise
ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file with the Office of the
Secretary the original document and 14 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 that 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
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, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and sections 210.42 and 210.50 of
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42 and
210.50.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 15, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-14289 Filed 7-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P