Tienshan, Inc. v. Tianjin Hua Feng Transport Agency Co., Ltd.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment, 50973-50974 [E8-20115]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 169 / Friday, August 29, 2008 / Notices to act within the above time frames, the application shall be ‘‘deemed granted.’’ Alternatively, CTIA asks the Commission to establish a presumption that entitles an applicant to a courtordered injunction granting the application unless the zoning authority can justify the delay. Third, CTIA asks the Commission to clarify that section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), which forbids state and local decisions that ‘‘prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,’’ 4 bars zoning decisions that have the effect of preventing a specific provider from providing service to a location on the basis of another provider’s presence there. Finally, CTIA requests that the Commission preempt, under section 253 of the Communications Act, local ordinances and state laws that automatically require a wireless service provider to obtain a variance before siting facilities. Procedural Matters This proceeding has been designated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.5 Parties making oral ex parte presentations in this proceeding are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain the presentation’s substance and not merely list the subjects discussed.6 More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required.7 Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998). • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES 4 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 47 CFR 1.1200(a), 1.1206. 6 See Commission Emphasizes the Public’s Responsibilities in Permit-But-Disclose Proceedings, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 19945 (2000). 7 See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2). Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are also set forth in 1.1206(b). See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 5 See VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:32 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission’s contractor will receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 418–0432 (tty). Parties shall send one copy of their comments and reply comments to Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378–3160, PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 50973 e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Comments filed in response to this public notice will be available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554, and via the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number, WT Docket No. 08–165. The comments may also be purchased from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., telephone (800) 378–3160, facsimile (202) 488–5563, or e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Federal Communications Commission. James D. Schlichting, Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. [FR Doc. E8–20010 Filed 8–28–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Docket No. 08–04] Tienshan, Inc. v. Tianjin Hua Feng Transport Agency Co., Ltd.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (‘‘Commission’’) by Tienshan, Inc. Complainant asserts that it is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 231 Wilson Avenue, South Norwalk, Connecticut 06854. Complainant alleges that Respondent, Tianjin Hua Feng Transport Agency Co., Ltd., is a foreign corporation organized and operating pursuant the laws of the People’s Republic of China with its principal place of business at Rm. 1002, Bldg. A, International Commercial Trade Center, No. 59 Machang Road, Hexi District, Tianjin, China. Complainant also alleges that Respondent is operating as a bonded and tariffed foreign-based Non-VesselOperating Common Carrier under FMC No. 018117. Complainant asserts that, in April 2008 it signed a sales contract for the purchase of stoneware from Henan Huatai Ceramic Technology Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Henan Huatai’’ or ‘‘Shipper’’), located in Henan, China, and that the terms of sale were FOB Tianjin Port, China. Complainant avers that it purchased the stoneware in order to perform its contracts with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (‘‘Wal-Mart’’) and other U.S. retailers. Complainant maintains that it paid the full contract price to Henan Huatai, and consequently, title to the goods was transferred to Complainant. E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES 50974 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 169 / Friday, August 29, 2008 / Notices Complainant alleges that the goods were loaded on a Wan Hai Lines (Singapore) PTE Ltd. (‘‘Wan Hai’’) vessel, under a Wan Hai bill of lading naming Henan Huatai as Shipper, and Complainant as Consignee; and that the cargo arrived at the port of discharge, Long Beach, CA, mid-June 2008. Complainant further alleges that it paid the full amount of the ocean freight and other charges to Wan Hai. Complainant claims that Shipper, Henan Huatai, went out of business in June 2008, and Respondent, acting as a freight forwarder in China on behalf of the Shipper, is unlawfully holding the original bill of lading, alleging debts owed by Shipper to Respondent. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s refusal to provide the original bill of lading to Complainant, unless Complainant paid to Respondent the amount owed by the Shipper, constitutes an unreasonable regulation or practice related to the delivery of property in violation of 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) (formerly § 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984). Complainant claims injury in the form of demurrage charges in the amount of $16,944.00; loss of its funds held in an escrow account required by Wan Hai in the amount of $47,801.42; and liquidated damages imposed by Wal-Mart for lost sales in the amount $106,115.00; for a total of $170,860.42, with liquidated damages continuing to accrue. Complainant requests that the Commission issue as relief, an Order: (1) Compelling Respondent to answer the charges in the subject complaint, and scheduling a hearing in Washington, DC; (2) finding that Respondent’s activities were unlawful and in violation of the Shipping Act; (3) compelling Respondent to pay reparations of $170,860.42 plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees; and (4) requiring Respondent to provide Complainant with the original bill of lading to allow Complainant to secure release of its escrow deposit from Wan Hai and stop other liquidated damages from accruing. Additionally, Complainant requests that the Commission issue further relief as it deems just and proper. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing shall include oral testimony and crossexamination in the discretion of the presiding officer only upon proper VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:32 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 showing that there are genuine issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and crossexamination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by August 26, 2009, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by December 24, 2009. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8–20115 Filed 8–28–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Common Formats for Patient Safety Data Collection and Event Reporting Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), DHHS. ACTION: Notice of Availability— Common Formats for Safety Data Collection and Event Reporting. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (Patient Safety Act) provides for the formation of Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), which would collect and analyze confidential information reported by healthcare providers. The Patient Safety Act (at 42 U.S.C. 299b–23) authorizes the collection of this information in a standardized manner, as explained in the related Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2008: 73 FR 8112–8183. As requested by the Secretary of DHHS, AHRQ has coordinated the development of a set of common definitions and reporting formats (Common Formats) which would facilitate the voluntary collection of patient safety data and reporting of this information to PSOs. The purpose of this notice is to announce the initial release of the Common Formats, Version 0.1 Beta, and the process for development of future versions. DATES: Ongoing public input. ADDRESSES: The Common Formats can be accessed electronically at the following Web site of the Department of Health and Human Services: https:// www.pso.ahrq.gov/. PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Grinder, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403–3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427–1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438–7231; TTY (local): (301) 427–1130; E-mail: psoc@ahrq.hhs.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Patient Safety Act establishes a framework by which doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers may voluntarily report information on a privileged and confidential basis regarding patient safety events and quality of care. The Patient Safety Act provides for voluntary formation of PSOs, which can be public or private organizations, that collect, aggregate, and analyze information regarding the quality and safety of care delivered in any healthcare setting. Information that is assembled and developed by providers and PSOs—called ‘‘patient safety work product’’—is privileged and confidential; it can be used to identify patient safety events and unsafe conditions that increase risks to patients. The Patient Safety Act requires PSOs, to the extent practical and appropriate, to collect patient safety work product from providers in a standardized manner in order to permit valid comparisons of similar cases among similar providers. One of the goals of the legislation is to allow aggregation of sufficient data to identify and address underlying causal factors of patient safety problems. In order to facilitate standardized data collection, the Secretary of DHHS requested AHRQ to coordinate the development of Common Formats for patient safety events. Definitions and other details about PSOs and patient safety work product have been prepared for publication at 42 CFR Part 3; a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2008, as noted above, and a final regulation implementing the Patient Safety Act is under review. Definition of Common Formats The term Common Formats is used to describe technical requirements developed for the uniform collection and reporting of patient safety data, including all supporting material: • Descriptions of patient safety events and unsafe conditions to be reported, • Delineation of data elements to be collected for specific types of events, E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50973-50974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20115]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 08-04]


Tienshan, Inc. v. Tianjin Hua Feng Transport Agency Co., Ltd.; 
Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (``Commission'') by Tienshan, Inc. Complainant 
asserts that it is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the 
laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 
231 Wilson Avenue, South Norwalk, Connecticut 06854. Complainant 
alleges that Respondent, Tianjin Hua Feng Transport Agency Co., Ltd., 
is a foreign corporation organized and operating pursuant the laws of 
the People's Republic of China with its principal place of business at 
Rm. 1002, Bldg. A, International Commercial Trade Center, No. 59 
Machang Road, Hexi District, Tianjin, China. Complainant also alleges 
that Respondent is operating as a bonded and tariffed foreign-based 
Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier under FMC No. 018117.
    Complainant asserts that, in April 2008 it signed a sales contract 
for the purchase of stoneware from Henan Huatai Ceramic Technology 
Trading Co., Ltd. (``Henan Huatai'' or ``Shipper''), located in Henan, 
China, and that the terms of sale were FOB Tianjin Port, China. 
Complainant avers that it purchased the stoneware in order to perform 
its contracts with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (``Wal-Mart'') and other U.S. 
retailers. Complainant maintains that it paid the full contract price 
to Henan Huatai, and consequently, title to the goods was transferred 
to Complainant.

[[Page 50974]]

    Complainant alleges that the goods were loaded on a Wan Hai Lines 
(Singapore) PTE Ltd. (``Wan Hai'') vessel, under a Wan Hai bill of 
lading naming Henan Huatai as Shipper, and Complainant as Consignee; 
and that the cargo arrived at the port of discharge, Long Beach, CA, 
mid-June 2008. Complainant further alleges that it paid the full amount 
of the ocean freight and other charges to Wan Hai. Complainant claims 
that Shipper, Henan Huatai, went out of business in June 2008, and 
Respondent, acting as a freight forwarder in China on behalf of the 
Shipper, is unlawfully holding the original bill of lading, alleging 
debts owed by Shipper to Respondent.
    Complainant alleges that Respondent's refusal to provide the 
original bill of lading to Complainant, unless Complainant paid to 
Respondent the amount owed by the Shipper, constitutes an unreasonable 
regulation or practice related to the delivery of property in violation 
of 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) (formerly Sec.  10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act of 
1984). Complainant claims injury in the form of demurrage charges in 
the amount of $16,944.00; loss of its funds held in an escrow account 
required by Wan Hai in the amount of $47,801.42; and liquidated damages 
imposed by Wal-Mart for lost sales in the amount $106,115.00; for a 
total of $170,860.42, with liquidated damages continuing to accrue.
    Complainant requests that the Commission issue as relief, an Order: 
(1) Compelling Respondent to answer the charges in the subject 
complaint, and scheduling a hearing in Washington, DC; (2) finding that 
Respondent's activities were unlawful and in violation of the Shipping 
Act; (3) compelling Respondent to pay reparations of $170,860.42 plus 
interest, costs, and attorney's fees; and (4) requiring Respondent to 
provide Complainant with the original bill of lading to allow 
Complainant to secure release of its escrow deposit from Wan Hai and 
stop other liquidated damages from accruing. Additionally, Complainant 
requests that the Commission issue further relief as it deems just and 
proper.
    This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative 
Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence 
within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after 
consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer 
to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing 
shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of 
the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine 
issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn 
statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the 
nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and cross-
examination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. 
Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of 
the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by August 26, 
2009, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by 
December 24, 2009.

Karen V. Gregory,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20115 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P