Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn Tractors, Riding Lawnmowers, and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review and on Review To Modify an Enforcement Initial Determination; Termination of Proceedings, 48777-48778 [05-16426]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 160 / Friday, August 19, 2005 / Notices
• Failure to abide by the terms and
conditions of this test, and any
applicable laws and regulations.
• Failure to exercise reasonable care
in the execution of participant
obligations.
• Misuse of the automated CBP Form
214 (i.e., engaging in unauthorized
disclosure or any activity which
interferes with the successful evaluation
of the new technology).
The Executive Director, Trade
Compliance and Facilitation, will
administer suspensions for misconduct.
A written notice proposing suspension
will be provided to the participant.
Such notice will apprise the participant
of the alleged facts or conduct
warranting suspension and will inform
the participant of the date that the
suspension will begin. Any decision
proposing suspension of a participant
may be appealed in writing to the
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field
Operations, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20229, within 15
calendar days of the notification date.
An appeal must address the alleged
facts or conduct charges contained in
the notice and state how compliance has
been or will be achieved. In cases of
non-payment, late payment, willful
misconduct or where public health
interests or safety is concerned, the
suspension may be effective
immediately. The same appeal
procedures apply in cases of immediate
suspension.
Test Evaluation Criteria
To ensure adequate feedback,
participants are required to participate
in an evaluation of this test. CBP also
invites all interested parties to comment
on the design, conduct and
implementation of the test at any time
during the test period. CBP will publish
the final results in the Federal Register
and the CBP Bulletin as required by
section 101.9 (b) of Title 19 of the CFR.
The following evaluation methods
and criteria have been suggested:
1. Baseline measurements to be
established through data analysis;
2. Questionnaires from both trade
participants and CBP addressing such
issues as:
• Workload impact (workload shifts/
volume, cycle times, etc.)
• Cost savings
• Policy and procedure
accommodation
• Trade compliance impact
• Problem resolution
• System efficiency
• Operational efficiency
• Other issues identified by the
participant group
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:47 Aug 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
Dated: August 12, 2005.
Jayson P. Ahern,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field
Operations.
[FR Doc. 05–16427 Filed 8–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–4980–N–33]
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
AGENCY:
Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice identifies
unutilized, underutilized, excess, and
surplus Federal property reviewed by
HUD for suitability for possible use to
assist the homeless.
DATES:
Effective August 19, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Room 7262,
451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–1234;
TTY number for the hearing- and
speech-impaired (202) 708–2565 (these
telephone numbers are not toll-free), or
call the toll-free Title V information line
at 1–800–927–7588.
In
accordance with the December 12, 1988,
court order in National Coalition for the
Homeless v. Veterans’ Administration,
No. 88–2503–OG (D.D.C.), HUD
publishes a notice, on a weekly basis,
identifying unutilized, underutilized,
excess and surplus Federal buildings
and real property that HUD has
reviewed for suitability for use to assist
the homeless. Today’s notice is for the
purpose of announcing that no
additional properties have been
determined suitable or unsuitable this
week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: August 11, 2005.
Mark R. Johnston,
Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance
Programs.
[FR Doc. 05–16243 Filed 8–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–29–M
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–486 Enforcement
Proceedings]
Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn
Tractors, Riding Lawnmowers, and
Components Thereof; Notice of a
Commission Determination To Review
and on Review To Modify an
Enforcement Initial Determination;
Termination of Proceedings
International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Federal Property Suitable as Facilities
To Assist the Homeless
ACTION:
48777
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part an enforcement initial
determination (EID) of the presiding
administrative law judge (ALJ) in the
above-captioned investigation finding a
violation of a limited exclusion order,
but declining to recommend any
enforcement measures. On review, the
Commission has determined to modify
the ID by correcting the ALJ’s finding
that the Commission intended to
foreclose the possibility of issuing a
general exclusion order as a remedy in
the above-captioned proceedings when
it denied complainant’s petition for
modification of the existing limited
exclusion order. The Commission has
determined not to review the reminder
of the EID.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael K. Haldenstein, Esq., telephone
202–205–3041, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. 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 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–ON–LINE) 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: On July 3,
2003, at the conclusion of Inv. No. 337–
TA–486, Certain Agricultural Tractors,
the Commission issued a limited
exclusion order which denies entry to
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
48778
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 160 / Friday, August 19, 2005 / Notices
tractors manufactured by a single
Chinese entity, respondent Beiqi Futian
Automobile Co., Ltd. (Futian), that
infringe the trade dress of complainant
New Holland North America. On
August 2, 2004, New Holland filed a
single document styled ‘‘Consolidated
Enforcement Complaint and Petition for
Modification,’’ in which it requested
both enforcement and modification of
the existing limited exclusion order by
replacing the limited exclusion order
with a general exclusion order. On
November 15, 2004, the Commission
ordered the institution of a formal
enforcement proceeding to determine
whether Futian (now known as Beiqi
Foton Motor Co., Ltd.) and Shandong
Worldbest Shantou Co., Ltd., an
allegedly related entity, (collectively,
‘‘the enforcement respondents’’) were in
violation of the limited exclusion order,
and what if any enforcement measures
were appropriate. The Commission
found that the petition for modification
proceedings to obtain a general
exclusion order failed to satisfy
Commission rule 210.76(a) in that the
complainant did not provide an
argument concerning the legal basis for
the broad modification sought. Thus,
the Commission did not institute
modification proceedings.
The Commission assigned the
enforcement proceedings to the ALJ
who conducted the original
investigation concerning violation. The
Commission subsequently set a target
date of November 21, 2005, for
completion of the investigation in light
of VastFame et al. v USITC, 386 F.3d
1108 (Fed. Cir. 2004), which holds that
the Commission’s authority for
conducting enforcement proceedings is
found in 19 U.S.C. 1337(b), a provision
which requires the Commission to set a
target date for completion of its
investigations within 45 days of
institution.
On February 4, 2005, the ALJ issued
an ID finding the two enforcement
respondents in default, and pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.16(b)(3), to have
waived their right to appear, be served
with documents, or contest the
allegations in the enforcement
complaint. The Commission declined to
review the ID and it became the final
determination of the Commission.
On May 13, 2005, the ALJ issued an
EID finding that the existing limited
exclusion order had been violated by
the enforcement respondents, but
recommending against any enforcement
measures by the Commission because:
(1) He believed the Commission did not
intend for him to issue a general
exclusion order; (2) New Holland had
failed to meet the statutory criteria for
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:47 Aug 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
a general exclusion order in default
investigations because it had not
established a violation of section 337 by
substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence as required by 19 U.S.C.
1337(g)(2)(A); and (3) New Holland did
not seek any enforcement measures
other than a general exclusion order.
The Commission has determined to
review and modify the EID to the extent
that the Commission does not adopt the
ALJ’s conclusion that the Commission
did not intend for him to issue a general
exclusion order when it instituted these
proceedings. Rather, the Commission
determined only to deny New Holland’s
petition for modification. The
Commission adopts the EID’s finding
that New Holland failed to meet the
statutory criteria for a general exclusion
order because it did not established a
violation of its trade dress by
substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence as required by section
337(g)(2)(A). The Commission agrees
with the ALJ that no other enforcement
measures are appropriate because New
Holland did not seek any enforcement
measure other than a general exclusion
order.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and section 210.42 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42).
from Japan of metal calendar slides,
provided for in subheading 7326.90.10
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States, that are alleged to be
sold in the United States at less than fair
value (LTFV).
Commencement of Final Phase
Investigation
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 15, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–16426 Filed 8–18–05; 8:45 am]
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the
Commission’s rules, the Commission
also gives notice of the commencement
of the final phase of its investigation.
The Commission will issue a final phase
notice of scheduling, which will be
published in the Federal Register as
provided in section 207.21 of the
Commission’s rules, upon notice from
the Department of Commerce
(Commerce) of an affirmative
preliminary determination in the
investigation under section 733(b) of the
Act, or, if the preliminary determination
is negative, upon notice of an
affirmative final determination in that
investigation under section 735(a) of the
Act. Parties that filed entries of
appearance in the preliminary phase of
the investigation need not enter a
separate appearance for the final phase
of the investigation. Industrial users,
and, if the merchandise under
investigation is sold at the retail level,
representative consumer organizations
have the right to appear as parties in
Commission antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations. The
Secretary will prepare a public service
list containing the names and addresses
of all persons, or their representatives,
who are parties to the investigation.
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
Background
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731–TA–1094
(Preliminary)]
Metal Calendar Slides From Japan
Determination
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject investigation, the United
States International Trade Commission
(Commission) determines,2 pursuant to
section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there
is a reasonable indication that an
industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of imports
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR § 207.2(f)).
2 Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and
Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson dissenting.
Commissioner Marcia E. Miller did not participate
in this determination.
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On June 29, 2005, a petition was filed
with the Commission and Commerce by
Stuebing Automatic Machine Co.,
Cincinnati, OH, alleging that an
industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of LTFV
imports of metal calendar slides from
Japan. Accordingly, effective June 29,
2005, the Commission instituted
antidumping duty investigation No.
731–TA–1094 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the
Commission’s investigation and of a
public conference to be held in
connection therewith was given by
posting copies of the notice in the Office
of the Secretary, U.S. International
Trade Commission, Washington, DC,
and by publishing the notice in the
Federal Register of July 11, 2005 (70 FR
39788). The conference was held in
Washington, DC, on July 20, 2005, and
all persons who requested the
opportunity were permitted to appear in
person or by counsel.
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48777-48778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16426]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-486 Enforcement Proceedings]
Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn Tractors, Riding Lawnmowers,
and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review
and on Review To Modify an Enforcement Initial Determination;
Termination of Proceedings
AGENCY: International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in part an enforcement initial
determination (EID) of the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) in
the above-captioned investigation finding a violation of a limited
exclusion order, but declining to recommend any enforcement measures.
On review, the Commission has determined to modify the ID by correcting
the ALJ's finding that the Commission intended to foreclose the
possibility of issuing a general exclusion order as a remedy in the
above-captioned proceedings when it denied complainant's petition for
modification of the existing limited exclusion order. The Commission
has determined not to review the reminder of the EID.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Haldenstein, Esq.,
telephone 202-205-3041, Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20436. 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 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-ON-LINE) 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: On July 3, 2003, at the conclusion of Inv.
No. 337-TA-486, Certain Agricultural Tractors, the Commission issued a
limited exclusion order which denies entry to
[[Page 48778]]
tractors manufactured by a single Chinese entity, respondent Beiqi
Futian Automobile Co., Ltd. (Futian), that infringe the trade dress of
complainant New Holland North America. On August 2, 2004, New Holland
filed a single document styled ``Consolidated Enforcement Complaint and
Petition for Modification,'' in which it requested both enforcement and
modification of the existing limited exclusion order by replacing the
limited exclusion order with a general exclusion order. On November 15,
2004, the Commission ordered the institution of a formal enforcement
proceeding to determine whether Futian (now known as Beiqi Foton Motor
Co., Ltd.) and Shandong Worldbest Shantou Co., Ltd., an allegedly
related entity, (collectively, ``the enforcement respondents'') were in
violation of the limited exclusion order, and what if any enforcement
measures were appropriate. The Commission found that the petition for
modification proceedings to obtain a general exclusion order failed to
satisfy Commission rule 210.76(a) in that the complainant did not
provide an argument concerning the legal basis for the broad
modification sought. Thus, the Commission did not institute
modification proceedings.
The Commission assigned the enforcement proceedings to the ALJ who
conducted the original investigation concerning violation. The
Commission subsequently set a target date of November 21, 2005, for
completion of the investigation in light of VastFame et al. v USITC,
386 F.3d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2004), which holds that the Commission's
authority for conducting enforcement proceedings is found in 19 U.S.C.
1337(b), a provision which requires the Commission to set a target date
for completion of its investigations within 45 days of institution.
On February 4, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID finding the two
enforcement respondents in default, and pursuant to Commission Rule
210.16(b)(3), to have waived their right to appear, be served with
documents, or contest the allegations in the enforcement complaint. The
Commission declined to review the ID and it became the final
determination of the Commission.
On May 13, 2005, the ALJ issued an EID finding that the existing
limited exclusion order had been violated by the enforcement
respondents, but recommending against any enforcement measures by the
Commission because: (1) He believed the Commission did not intend for
him to issue a general exclusion order; (2) New Holland had failed to
meet the statutory criteria for a general exclusion order in default
investigations because it had not established a violation of section
337 by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence as required by 19
U.S.C. 1337(g)(2)(A); and (3) New Holland did not seek any enforcement
measures other than a general exclusion order.
The Commission has determined to review and modify the EID to the
extent that the Commission does not adopt the ALJ's conclusion that the
Commission did not intend for him to issue a general exclusion order
when it instituted these proceedings. Rather, the Commission determined
only to deny New Holland's petition for modification. The Commission
adopts the EID's finding that New Holland failed to meet the statutory
criteria for a general exclusion order because it did not established a
violation of its trade dress by substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence as required by section 337(g)(2)(A). The Commission agrees
with the ALJ that no other enforcement measures are appropriate because
New Holland did not seek any enforcement measure other than a general
exclusion order.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and section 210.42 of
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 15, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-16426 Filed 8-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
