In the Matter of Certain Rubber Antidegradants, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice Regarding Remand Proceeding, 34947-34948 [E8-13875]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices Spokane Valley, WA, 99212, or call (509) 536–1200. Dated June 13, 2008. Robert B. Towne, District Manager. [FR Doc. E8–13847 Filed 6–18–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–33–P the meeting. Meeting Minutes and agenda (10 days prior to each meeting) are also available at: https:// www.blm.gov/rac/co/frrac/co_fr.htm. Dated: June 11, 2008. Roy L. Masinton, Field Manager, Royal Gorge Field Office. [FR Doc. E8–13852 Filed 6–18–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–JB–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [CO–200–0777–XZ–241A] Notice of Meeting, Front Range Resource Advisory Council (Colorado) AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. Notice of Public Meeting. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES ACTION: SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Front Range Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below. DATES: The meeting will be held July 15, 2008 from 9:15 a.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Bureau of Land Management Royal Gorge Field Office, 3028 East Main Street, Canon City, Colorado 81212. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Dow, (719) 269–8559. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the Royal Gorge Field Office and San Luis Valley, Colorado. Planned agenda topics include: Manager updates on current land management issues including presentations and discussions on the South Park Land Tenure Adjustment Plan AmendmentEnvironmental Assessment, Implementation of the Arkansas River Travel Management Plan and the Over the River project. All meetings are open to the public. The public is encouraged to make oral comments to the Council at 9:30 a.m. or written statements may be submitted for the Council’s consideration. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Summary minutes for the Council Meeting will be maintained in the Royal Gorge Field Office and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:00 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 214001 [ Investigation No. 337–TA–533] In the Matter of Certain Rubber Antidegradants, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice Regarding Remand Proceeding U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This notice clarifies that the parties to the remand proceeding which was the subject of the Commission’s June 3, 2008, notice and order are complainant Flexsys America L.P., respondents Sinorgchem Co. and Sovereign Chemical Company, and the Commission investigative attorney. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Worth, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3065. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https:// edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on March 29, 2005, based on a complaint brought by Flexsys America L.P. (‘‘Flexsys’’), alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, the sale for importation, or the sale after importation of certain rubber antidegradants, components thereof, or products containing same by reason of PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34947 infringement of claims 30 or 61 of U.S. Patent No. 5,117,063 (‘‘the ’063 patent’’), or claims 7 or 11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,608,111 (‘‘the ’111 patent’’), or claims 1, 32, or 40 of U.S. Patent No. 6,140,538 (‘‘the ’538 patent’’). 70 FR 15,855 (Mar. 29, 2005). The patents teach processes for the production of 4–ADPA and alkylated derivatives of 4–ADPA. One of these alkylated derivatives, 6–PPD, is used to prevent the degradation of rubber. The complaint named as respondents Sinorgchem Co. (‘‘Sinorgchem’’) of Shandong, China, as well as Sovereign Chemical Company (‘‘Sovereign’’), Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘KKPC’’), Vilax Corporation (‘‘Vilax’’), and Stolt-Nielson Transportation Group Ltd. (‘‘Stolt-Nielson’’). It was alleged that the accused rubber antidegradant products were made using the patented processes. The investigation was terminated with regard to the ’538 patent, and with regard to Vilax and Stolt-Nielson. On February 16, 2006, the ALJ issued his final initial determination (‘‘final ID’’ or ‘‘ID’’). The ALJ found that Sinorgchem and Sovereign had violated section 337 by infringing the asserted claims of the ’063 and ’111 patents, but found that KKPC had not. All parties petitioned for review of various parts of the final ID. The Commission reviewed the ALJ’s final ID in its entirety, and solicited further briefing from the parties on the issues on review, as well as the on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 71 FR 20131 (April 19, 2006). On review, the Commission found the asserted claims to be infringed by Sinorgchem and Sovereign, made a determination of violation of section 337 by Sinorgchem and Sovereign, and issued a limited exclusion order. The limited exclusion order barred the unauthorized importation into the United States by Sinorgchem and Sovereign of 4–ADPA, made by a process covered by claim 30 of the ‘063 patent or claim 7 of the ‘111 patent, and 6–PPD, made by a process covered by claim 61 of the ‘063 patent or claim 11 of the ‘111 patent. Sinorgchem appealed the Commission’s final determination of violation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’). Flexsys did not appeal the Commission’s final determination that KKPC had not violated section 337. On December 21, 2007, the Federal Circuit issued its judgment vacating and remanding the Commission’s final determination of violation for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM 19JNN1 34948 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices International Trade Commission, 511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Intervenor Flexsys America L.P. (‘‘Flexsys’’) petitioned the Federal Circuit for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The Commission supported rehearing. On April 7, 2008, the Federal Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The mandate of the Court issued on April 14, 2008. On June 3, 2008, the Commission determined to rescind the limited exclusion order relating to the importation of rubber antidegradants made by Sinorgchem and Sovereign and to remand the investigation to the presiding ALJ for proceedings consistent with Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. International Trade Commission, 511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007), including issuance of a final initial determination on violation and a recommended determination on remedy and bonding. The parties to the remand proceeding are Flexsys, Sinorgchem, Sovereign, and the Commission investigative attorney. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), the Administrative Procedure Act, and Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 210). By order of the Commission. Issued: June 13, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8–13875 Filed 6–18–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P assets of Houghton Mifflin College Division would violate section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The proposed Final Judgment, filed at the same time as the Complaint, requires Cengage Learning to divest assets related to textbooks and educational materials used in 14 college-level courses. Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202– 514–2481), on the Department of Justice’s Web site at https:// www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations. Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, and responses thereto, will be published in the Federal Register and filed with the Court. Comments should be directed to James J. Tierney, Chief, Networks & Technology Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 600 E Street, NW., Suite 9500, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–307–6200). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES United States v. Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P., Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P., Cengage Learning, Inc., Apax/Tl Holdings, LLC, Education Media and Publishing Group Limited, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Asset Preservation Stipulation and Order, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in United States v. Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P., Civil Action No. 1:08–cv–00899. On May 28, 2008, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that the proposed acquisition by Cengage Learning of the VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:00 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 214001 United States of America, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 600 E Street, NW., Suite 9500, Washington, DC 20530, Plaintiff, v. Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P., Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P., Cengage Learning, Inc., Apax/Tl Holdings, LLC, Education Media and Publishing Group Limiited, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, Defendants Case No.: Judge: Case: 1:08–cv–00899, Assigned To: Bates, John D., Assign. Date: 5/28/ 2008, Description: Antitrust. Complaint The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil antitrust action to enjoin the proposed acquisition by Cengage Learning, Inc. and related entities (collectively ‘‘Cengage’’), of the assets of the Houghton Mifflin College Division PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (‘‘HM College’’) from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company and a related entity (collectively ‘‘Houghton Mifflin’’), and to obtain equitable and other relief. The United States complains and alleges as follows: I. Nature of the Action 1. On or about November 30, 2007, Cengage and Houghton Mifflin entered into an agreement for Cengage to acquire the assets of HM College for approximately $750 million. 2. Cengage and HM College publish textbooks and other educational materials and are direct competitors in the development, publication, and sale of textbooks and ancillary print and electronic (including Internet-based) educational materials (collectively ‘‘textbooks and ancillary materials’’) used in numerous courses taught at higher education institutions throughout the United States. For the courses listed in Appendix A of this Complaint (hereinafter ‘‘the Overlap Courses’’), Cengage and HM College publish textbooks and ancillary materials that compete head-to-head with each other and are close substitutes. 3. The markets for textbooks and ancillary materials used in the Overlap Courses are highly concentrated and have high barriers to entry. Cengage’s proposed acquisition of the assets of HM College would eliminate competition between Cengage and HM College in these markets. 4. The United States brings this action to prevent Cengage’s proposed acquisition of the assets of HM College because it is likely to substantially lessen competition in the development, publication, and sale of textbooks and ancillary materials used in the Overlap Courses in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. II. Parties to the Proposed Acquisition 5. Cengage Learning, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut. Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P., a limited partnership with its headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut, is the ultimate parent entity of Cengage Learning, Inc. Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P., a limited partnership with its headquarters in Stamford Connecticut, is an intermediate entity between Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P. and Cengage Learning, Inc. Apax/ TL Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is the general partner in Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P. The above entities (collectively ‘‘Cengage’’) develop, publish, and sell textbooks and ancillary materials for use E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM 19JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 119 (Thursday, June 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34947-34948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13875]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[ Investigation No. 337-TA-533]


 In the Matter of Certain Rubber Antidegradants, Components 
Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice Regarding Remand 
Proceeding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice clarifies that the parties to the remand 
proceeding which was the subject of the Commission's June 3, 2008, 
notice and order are complainant Flexsys America L.P., respondents 
Sinorgchem Co. and Sovereign Chemical Company, and the Commission 
investigative attorney.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Worth, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3065. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are 
or will be available for inspection during official business hours 
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the 
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server 
(https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be 
viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information 
on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD 
terminal on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on March 29, 2005, based on a complaint brought by Flexsys America L.P. 
(``Flexsys''), alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, 
the sale for importation, or the sale after importation of certain 
rubber antidegradants, components thereof, or products containing same 
by reason of infringement of claims 30 or 61 of U.S. Patent No. 
5,117,063 (``the '063 patent''), or claims 7 or 11 of U.S. Patent No. 
5,608,111 (``the '111 patent''), or claims 1, 32, or 40 of U.S. Patent 
No. 6,140,538 (``the '538 patent''). 70 FR 15,855 (Mar. 29, 2005). The 
patents teach processes for the production of 4-ADPA and alkylated 
derivatives of 4-ADPA. One of these alkylated derivatives, 6-PPD, is 
used to prevent the degradation of rubber.
    The complaint named as respondents Sinorgchem Co. (``Sinorgchem'') 
of Shandong, China, as well as Sovereign Chemical Company 
(``Sovereign''), Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (``KKPC''), Vilax 
Corporation (``Vilax''), and Stolt-Nielson Transportation Group Ltd. 
(``Stolt-Nielson''). It was alleged that the accused rubber 
antidegradant products were made using the patented processes. The 
investigation was terminated with regard to the '538 patent, and with 
regard to Vilax and Stolt-Nielson.
    On February 16, 2006, the ALJ issued his final initial 
determination (``final ID'' or ``ID''). The ALJ found that Sinorgchem 
and Sovereign had violated section 337 by infringing the asserted 
claims of the '063 and '111 patents, but found that KKPC had not. All 
parties petitioned for review of various parts of the final ID.
    The Commission reviewed the ALJ's final ID in its entirety, and 
solicited further briefing from the parties on the issues on review, as 
well as the on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 
71 FR 20131 (April 19, 2006). On review, the Commission found the 
asserted claims to be infringed by Sinorgchem and Sovereign, made a 
determination of violation of section 337 by Sinorgchem and Sovereign, 
and issued a limited exclusion order. The limited exclusion order 
barred the unauthorized importation into the United States by 
Sinorgchem and Sovereign of 4-ADPA, made by a process covered by claim 
30 of the `063 patent or claim 7 of the `111 patent, and 6-PPD, made by 
a process covered by claim 61 of the `063 patent or claim 11 of the 
`111 patent.
    Sinorgchem appealed the Commission's final determination of 
violation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(``Federal Circuit''). Flexsys did not appeal the Commission's final 
determination that KKPC had not violated section 337. On December 21, 
2007, the Federal Circuit issued its judgment vacating and remanding 
the Commission's final determination of violation for further 
proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. Sinorgchem Co., 
Shandong v.

[[Page 34948]]

International Trade Commission, 511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 
Intervenor Flexsys America L.P. (``Flexsys'') petitioned the Federal 
Circuit for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The Commission supported 
rehearing. On April 7, 2008, the Federal Circuit denied the petition 
for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The mandate of the Court issued on 
April 14, 2008.
    On June 3, 2008, the Commission determined to rescind the limited 
exclusion order relating to the importation of rubber antidegradants 
made by Sinorgchem and Sovereign and to remand the investigation to the 
presiding ALJ for proceedings consistent with Sinorgchem Co., Shandong 
v. International Trade Commission, 511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007), 
including issuance of a final initial determination on violation and a 
recommended determination on remedy and bonding.
    The parties to the remand proceeding are Flexsys, Sinorgchem, 
Sovereign, and the Commission investigative attorney.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), the Administrative 
Procedure Act, and Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 13, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
 [FR Doc. E8-13875 Filed 6-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.