In the Matter of Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination To Reverse a Remand Initial Determination of the Administrative Law Judge That Section 337 Has Been Violated; Termination of Investigation, 49705-49706 [E8-19571]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Notices
characteristics of those who specifically
view bears on roadsides in the park. The
importance of visitation specifically tied
to roadside bear viewing in the park will
be examined. The NPS’s goal in
conducting this survey is to evaluate the
importance and economic effects of
roadside bear viewing. The obligation to
respond is voluntary.
Automated data collection: This
information will be collected via mailback surveys no automated data
collection will take place.
Description of respondents: Visitors to
Yellowstone National Park.
Estimated average number of
respondents: 1000 (800 respondents and
200 non-respondents).
Estimated average number of
responses: 1000 (800 responses and 200
non-responses).
Estimated average burden hours per
response: 21 minutes per respondent
and 1 minute per non-respondent.
Frequency of response: 1 time per
respondent and non-respondent.
Estimated annual reporting burden:
283 hours.
Comments are invited on: (1) The
practical utility of the information being
gathered; (2) the accuracy of the burden
hour estimate; (3) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
ways to minimize the burden to
respondents, including use of
automated information collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology. Before including your
address, phone number, e-mail address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Dated: August 7, 2008.
Leonard E. Stowe,
NPS, Information Collection Clearance
Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–19429 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 4312–52–M
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:12 Aug 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–487 (Remand)]
In the Matter of Certain Agricultural
Vehicles and Components Thereof;
Notice of Commission Determination
To Reverse a Remand Initial
Determination of the Administrative
Law Judge That Section 337 Has Been
Violated; Termination of Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reverse
the presiding administrative law judge’s
finding of violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act, as amended, on remand and
has terminated the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan J. Engler, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3112. The public version of the
ALJ’s final ID and all other
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
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on 202–205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on February 13, 2003, based on a
complaint filed by Deere & Company
(‘‘Deere’’) of Moline, Illinois. 68 FR 7388
(February 13, 2003). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleged violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in
the importation into the United States,
sale for importation, and sale within the
United States after importation of
certain agricultural vehicles and
components thereof by reason of
infringement and dilution of U.S.
Registered Trademarks Nos. 1,254,339;
1,502,576; 1,503,576, and 91,860.
Twenty-four respondents were named
in the Commission’s notice of
investigation. Most of the respondents
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49705
were terminated from the investigation
on the basis of consent orders, or found
in default. The remaining respondents,
Erntetechnik Franz Becker; Sunova
Implement Company; Bourdeau Bros.,
Inc. and OK Enterprises (collectively,
‘‘the Bourdeau respondents’’);
Fitzpatrick Farms; Stanley Farms; J&T
Farms; and Co-Ag LLC (collectively,
‘‘the Fitzpatrick Farms respondents’’);
and Agrideal participated in the
investigation. On January 13, 2004, the
ALJ issued his final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) finding a violation
of section 337. He also recommended
the issuance of remedial orders. The
Bourdeau respondents and Fitzpatrick
Farms respondents petitioned for review
of the ID.
On March 30, 2004, the Commission
determined not to review the ID. The
Commission then issued a general
exclusion order directed to Deere
European-version self propelled forage
harvesters, two limited exclusion orders
directed to Deere European-version
telehandlers, and various cease and
desist orders, on May 14, 2004.
The Bourdeau respondents appealed
the Commission’s final determination to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (the ‘‘Federal Circuit’’).
On March 30, 2006, the Federal Circuit
vacated and remanded the
Commission’s final determination as it
related to Deere European-version selfpropelled forage harvesters
(‘‘EVSPFHs’’). Bourdeau Bros. v.
International Trade Commission, 444
F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
On June 20, 2006, the Commission
rescinded the general exclusion order
and certain cease and desist orders, and
remanded the investigation to the
presiding ALJ for proceedings consistent
with the Federal Circuit’s decision in
Bourdeau. On August 18, 2006, the ALJ
issued Order No. 55, denying
complainant’s and respondents’ motions
for summary determination. The ALJ
issued his final ID on remand (‘‘Remand
ID’’) on December 20, 2006. He found
that Deere did not authorize the sale of
Deere European-version self-propelled
forage harvesters in the United States
and that all or substantially all of the
Deere self-propelled forage harvesters
sold in the United States were North
American versions. In further briefing
before the Commission, the respondents
claimed error.
On February 20, 2007, the
Commission determined to review in
part Order No. 55 and the Remand ID.
The Commission requested briefing by
the parties (1) On the standard for
authorization that was applied in Order
No. 55 and how that standard was
applied in light of the burden of proof;
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
49706
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Notices
(2) on the issue of Deere’s alleged
financing of certain EVSPFHs; (3) with
respect to the ALJ’s application of the
‘‘all or substantially all’’ standard,
including a statement of the type and
number of sales relied on and the basis
for reliance on those sales, especially
the basis for including used sales of
North American-version harvesters in
the assessment of whether that standard
has been met by Deere; and (4) on
whether all or substantially all of
Deere’s sales of SPFHs were of North
American versions of these machines.
On March 13, 2008, the Commission
asked the parties to discuss (1) The total
quantity of new and used EVSPFHs sold
by John Deere’s official European
dealers to the United States from 1997
through 2002, including (a) all European
dealer sales for importation to the
United States for which there is
documentary evidence in the existing
record and (b) an estimate of the total
quantum of additional European dealer
sales for importation to the United
States for which there may not be
documentary evidence on this record;
(2) an exclusively legal discussion of the
relevance of the agency doctrines of
actual and apparent authority in the
context of gray market sales in the
United States; and (3) whether, if the
Commission were to take into account
only sales of gray market EVSPFHs by
U.S. dealers (i.e. sales within the United
States after importation), and not sales
for importation of gray market goods by
John Deere’s European dealers, it would
in effect improperly limit the scope of
the unlawful activities that it is required
to consider under the statute, which
includes within the Commission’s
jurisdiction ‘‘the sale for importation’’
as well as ‘‘the sale within the United
States after importation’’ of articles that
infringe a valid United States trademark.
19 U.S.C. Section 1337(a)(1)(C).
Written submissions were received by
the parties on April 15 and April 24,
2008. On April 30, the parties each filed
reply submissions.
Having considered the record and
briefing in this investigation, the
Commission has determined to reverse
the ALJ’s finding of violation. A
Commission Opinion in support of its
determinations will follow shortly.
The authority for this notice is
contained in section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
1337, and in section 210.45(c) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.45(c)).
By order of the Commission.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:12 Aug 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
Issued: August 12, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–19571 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Consent Decrees Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
Notice is hereby given that two
Consent Decrees in United States of
America v. M.A. Hanna Plastics, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 06–409 GMS, have
been lodged with the United States
District Court for the District of
Delaware. The United States lodged a
consent decree with defendant
Wilmington Economic Development
Corporation \ (‘‘WEDCO’’) on August 8,
2008, and lodged a consent decree with
defendant M.A. Hanna Plastics Group
\‘‘Hanna’’) on August 14, 2008.
The two consent decrees will resolve
the liability of the two remaining
defendants in this cost recovery action
under Section 107 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act \ (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607 in
connection with the 12th Street Dump
Site in Wilmington, Delaware \(‘‘Site’’).
On June 28, 2006, the United States
filed a Complaint against four
defendants who currently or previously
owned or operated property at the Site.
The United States previously settled
with two of the named defendants.
The two consent decrees now being
proposed will resolve the United States’
filed claims against the two remaining
defendants, Hanna and WEDCO, as set
forth in the consent decrees. Hanna will
reimburse the United States
$3,597,877.20 and will receive a
covenant not to sue for past costs.
WEDCO will reimburse the United
States $120,000 in past costs and will
agree to sell its parcel and provide the
United States with the higher of either
50% of the net proceeds or $40,000.00.
WEDCO will also receive a covenant not
to sue for past costs.
The Department of Justice will receive
for a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of this publication comments
relating to these proposed Consent
Decrees. Comments should be addressed
to the Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources
Division, and either e-mailed to
pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or
mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20044–7611, Attention: Nancy
Flickinger (EES), and should refer to
United States of America v. M.A. Hanna
Plastics, Inc., et al. , Civil Action No.
06–409 GMS, DOJ # 90–11–3–08301.
The proposed Consent Decree may be
examined at the Office of the United
States Attorney for the District of
Delaware, Nemours Building, P.O. Box
2046, Wilmington, DE 19801. During the
public comment period, the consent
decree may also be examined on the
following Department of Justice Web
site, https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/
Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the
proposed Consent Decree may also 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
(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no.
(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation
number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a
copy from the Consent Decree Library,
please enclose a check in the amount of
$ $7.00 for the consent decree with
WEDCO, and/or $5.25 for the consent
decree with M.A. Hanna (25 cents per
page reproduction cost for a full copy)
payable to the U.S. Treasury.
Maureen M. Katz,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement
Section, Environment and Natural Resources
Division.
[FR Doc. E8–19447 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree
Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act
Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7 notice is
hereby given that on August 14, 2008,
a proposed Consent Decree in the case
United States v. William J. Roper, Sr., et
al., Civil Action No. 3:00cv472–GCM,
was lodged with the United States
District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina.
In this action, under Section 107(a)(1)
and (2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(1)
and (2), the United States sought
recovery of response costs to remedy
conditions in connection with the
release or threatened release of
hazardous substances into the
environment at the North Belmont PCE
Site (‘‘the Site’’), located in Belmont,
Gaston County, North Carolina. A
portion of the Site is comprised of the
Roper Shopping Center upon which the
United States had placed a Superfund
Lien. The Complaint also included an in
rem action under Section 107(l) of
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 164 (Friday, August 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49705-49706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19571]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-487 (Remand)]
In the Matter of Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components
Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination To Reverse a Remand Initial
Determination of the Administrative Law Judge That Section 337 Has Been
Violated; Termination of Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reverse the presiding administrative law
judge's finding of violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act, as
amended, on remand and has terminated the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan J. Engler, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3112. The public version
of the ALJ's final ID and all other 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 this matter can be obtained by contacting
the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on February 13, 2003, based on a complaint filed by Deere & Company
(``Deere'') of Moline, Illinois. 68 FR 7388 (February 13, 2003). The
complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, sale for
importation, and sale within the United States after importation of
certain agricultural vehicles and components thereof by reason of
infringement and dilution of U.S. Registered Trademarks Nos. 1,254,339;
1,502,576; 1,503,576, and 91,860.
Twenty-four respondents were named in the Commission's notice of
investigation. Most of the respondents were terminated from the
investigation on the basis of consent orders, or found in default. The
remaining respondents, Erntetechnik Franz Becker; Sunova Implement
Company; Bourdeau Bros., Inc. and OK Enterprises (collectively, ``the
Bourdeau respondents''); Fitzpatrick Farms; Stanley Farms; J&T Farms;
and Co-Ag LLC (collectively, ``the Fitzpatrick Farms respondents'');
and Agrideal participated in the investigation. On January 13, 2004,
the ALJ issued his final initial determination (``ID'') finding a
violation of section 337. He also recommended the issuance of remedial
orders. The Bourdeau respondents and Fitzpatrick Farms respondents
petitioned for review of the ID.
On March 30, 2004, the Commission determined not to review the ID.
The Commission then issued a general exclusion order directed to Deere
European-version self propelled forage harvesters, two limited
exclusion orders directed to Deere European-version telehandlers, and
various cease and desist orders, on May 14, 2004.
The Bourdeau respondents appealed the Commission's final
determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the
``Federal Circuit''). On March 30, 2006, the Federal Circuit vacated
and remanded the Commission's final determination as it related to
Deere European-version self-propelled forage harvesters (``EVSPFHs'').
Bourdeau Bros. v. International Trade Commission, 444 F.3d 1317 (Fed.
Cir. 2006).
On June 20, 2006, the Commission rescinded the general exclusion
order and certain cease and desist orders, and remanded the
investigation to the presiding ALJ for proceedings consistent with the
Federal Circuit's decision in Bourdeau. On August 18, 2006, the ALJ
issued Order No. 55, denying complainant's and respondents' motions for
summary determination. The ALJ issued his final ID on remand (``Remand
ID'') on December 20, 2006. He found that Deere did not authorize the
sale of Deere European-version self-propelled forage harvesters in the
United States and that all or substantially all of the Deere self-
propelled forage harvesters sold in the United States were North
American versions. In further briefing before the Commission, the
respondents claimed error.
On February 20, 2007, the Commission determined to review in part
Order No. 55 and the Remand ID. The Commission requested briefing by
the parties (1) On the standard for authorization that was applied in
Order No. 55 and how that standard was applied in light of the burden
of proof;
[[Page 49706]]
(2) on the issue of Deere's alleged financing of certain EVSPFHs; (3)
with respect to the ALJ's application of the ``all or substantially
all'' standard, including a statement of the type and number of sales
relied on and the basis for reliance on those sales, especially the
basis for including used sales of North American-version harvesters in
the assessment of whether that standard has been met by Deere; and (4)
on whether all or substantially all of Deere's sales of SPFHs were of
North American versions of these machines.
On March 13, 2008, the Commission asked the parties to discuss (1)
The total quantity of new and used EVSPFHs sold by John Deere's
official European dealers to the United States from 1997 through 2002,
including (a) all European dealer sales for importation to the United
States for which there is documentary evidence in the existing record
and (b) an estimate of the total quantum of additional European dealer
sales for importation to the United States for which there may not be
documentary evidence on this record; (2) an exclusively legal
discussion of the relevance of the agency doctrines of actual and
apparent authority in the context of gray market sales in the United
States; and (3) whether, if the Commission were to take into account
only sales of gray market EVSPFHs by U.S. dealers (i.e. sales within
the United States after importation), and not sales for importation of
gray market goods by John Deere's European dealers, it would in effect
improperly limit the scope of the unlawful activities that it is
required to consider under the statute, which includes within the
Commission's jurisdiction ``the sale for importation'' as well as ``the
sale within the United States after importation'' of articles that
infringe a valid United States trademark. 19 U.S.C. Section
1337(a)(1)(C).
Written submissions were received by the parties on April 15 and
April 24, 2008. On April 30, the parties each filed reply submissions.
Having considered the record and briefing in this investigation,
the Commission has determined to reverse the ALJ's finding of
violation. A Commission Opinion in support of its determinations will
follow shortly.
The authority for this notice is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in section
210.45(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.45(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 12, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-19571 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P