In the Matter of Certain Base Plugs; Notice of Commission Decision Not to Review an Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate Investigation, 55131-55132 [E8-22302]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices
not possible today without severe
airspace impacts.4
3. Several commentors disagreed with
including or excluding flights above
17,999 feet MSL in the clarification or
implied that the Notice misstates and
overstates the consideration of high
altitude overflights in the 1995 Report to
Congress. One said that clarification on
high-altitude flights is needed from
Congress rather than from the NPS;
another stated that rerouting
commercial overflights (nonsightseeing) above 17,999 feet MSL is
not covered by the Overflights Act and
is an otherwise impractical solution for
reducing aviation noise.
NPS Response: Consistent with the
Overflights Act and a 2002 U.S. Court of
Appeals decision, the impacts of all
aircraft overflights need to be analyzed.
This clarification does not dismiss the
impacts of any type of overflight, but it
does remove flights above 17,999 feet
MSL from consideration when
determining the percentage of the park
achieving substantial restoration of
natural quiet. The Grand Canyon
Working Group (GCWG) recommended
that the FAA and NPS work together to
address these high altitude issues in a
manner consistent with the proposed
clarification to allow the EIS to proceed.
All aircraft noise will be considered in
the EIS analysis. The primary effect of
the clarification is that aircraft noise
from above 17,999 feet MSL will be
analyzed in the EIS as part of
cumulative effects, while the aircraft
noise at and below that level will be
analyzed as part of the direct effects of
the actions proposed in the EIS
alternatives.
4. Two comments were received
suggesting that Congress did not intend
for the NPS or the FAA to impose
regulations on high-altitude flights in
order to achieve substantial restoration
of natural quiet.
NPS Response: The Overflights Act
required a study of all aircraft
overflights at GCNP in part to
distinguish between the noise impacts
produced by various types of aircraft,
including commercial aviation. The
study resulted in the 1995 Report to
Congress which recommended an
analysis of how to reduce other adverse
impacts from overflights, such as
protection of the park experience and
public health and safety. Because high
altitude commercial aviation overflights
make noise and cause impacts to park
resources such as the natural
soundscape and visitor experience, the
4 Elwell, D. 2007. Personal communication with
D. Verhey, letter dated March 6. U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:26 Sep 23, 2008
Jkt 214001
GCWG recommended that the FAA and
NPS work together to address the high
altitude noise separately from low-level
air tour, air tour-related, military, and
general aviation aircraft overflights (at
and below 17,999 feet MSL). The NPS
determined that addressing aircraft
noise in this manner is consistent with
the law, and allows the EIS to proceed.
The FAA has jurisdiction over highaltitude flights and has committed to the
management actions described above in
the NPS Response to Comment #1. In
addition, the NPS has the responsibility
to manage all park resources, including
the natural soundscape.
5. Ten comments were received
suggesting that the minimum of 50% of
the park that will achieve restoration of
natural quiet was too low and should be
increased. Additional comments suggest
that NPS should maintain the original
definition for substantial restoration of
natural quiet. Several commentors
appeared to be under the impression
that NPS was changing the definition of
substantial restoration of natural quiet.
NPS Response: NPS is not changing
the definition, but merely clarifying it in
the Notice. In addition to the
clarification related to 17,999 feet MSL,
the Notice also clarifies that 50% of the
park is a minimum in the restoration
goal. The definition of substantial
restoration of natural quiet remains as
defined in the 1995 NPS Report to
Congress. The Notice simply clarifies
how the definition will be applied in
environmental analysis related to FAA
rulemaking actions at GCNP.
6. One comment was received stating
that the Notice did not discuss, cite or
otherwise disclose the professionally
prepared September 2007 analysis/
critique of the MITRE Report.5
NPS Response: The MITRE report 6
was a key factor in requiring the NPS to
clarify the definition to address flights
above 17,999 feet MSL, as discussed at
73 FR 19246–19248. The conclusion of
the report was that it was unsafe, at the
time, to modify national airspace over
the park or divert commercial jet traffic
off of existing routes that cross over the
park and the Special Flight Rules Area
(SFRA). FAA made the decision to
accept the MITRE report outcome, and
to maintain existing national airspace
structure and operation over the park
5 Sierra Club. Independent Review: Study for
Grand Canyon Working Group (MITRE report
critique). 2007. September.
6 Abrahamsen, T.R., G.F. Marani, and R. Bearer.
2006. Impact on Restricting Flights from Grand
Canyon Airspace. The MITRE Corporation CAASD
for the Federal Aviation Administration and
National Park Service, Report No. F063–B06–050,
presented to the Grand Canyon Working Group,
September.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55131
and the SFRA. Though the critique and
the report itself arrived at different
conclusions, the NPS deferred to the
FAA as the jurisdictional authority and
their decision to support the MITRE
study conclusions, and to continue
FAA’s airspace policies.
7. One comment was received that a
change in the definition with regard to
high-altitude aircraft noise was
unwarranted and imprudent given the
current issues facing the aviation
industry (i.e., rising fuel prices, climate
change concerns).
NPS Response: The NPS is
implementing a clarification to the
existing definition. Although the larger
aviation industry issues are beyond the
scope of the Federal Register Notice, if
appropriate, they will be considered in
the EIS impact analysis.
Conclusion
The NPS is not changing the
definition of substantial restoration of
natural quiet, but merely clarifying the
scope and intent of the original
definition. This clarification is
necessary for the NPS and the FAA to
meet the goals of the Overflights Act,
and to proceed with assessing aircraft
noise impacts in the EIS.
As discussed above, the National Park
Service has carefully considered and
responded to the comments received.
Based on this consideration, the NPS
decision is to adopt the clarification of
the NPS definition of substantial
restoration of natural quiet at Grand
Canyon National Park as published at 73
FR 19246–19248.
Dated: July 31, 2008.
Anthony J. Schetzsle,
Deputy Director, Intermountain Region,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. E8–22343 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–70–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–622]
In the Matter of Certain Base Plugs;
Notice of Commission Decision Not to
Review an Initial Determination
Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate
Investigation
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 the presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination
E:\FR\FM\24SEN1.SGM
24SEN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55132
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices
(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 6) granting a joint
motion to terminate the above-captioned
investigation as to all Respondents.
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. Copies of the ALJ’s IDs and
all other 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 at 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: On
December 19, 2007, the Commission
instituted this investigation, based on a
complaint filed by Anchor Sports I, Inc.
of Richardson, Texas (‘‘Anchor’’). The
complaint, as supplemented, alleges
violations of section 337 in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain base plugs by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. 6,142,882. The complaint, as
supplemented, further alleges that an
industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section
337. The complaint named two firms as
respondents, Schutt Sports, Inc. of
Litchfield, Illinois (‘‘Schutt’’), and East
Texas Sports Center, Inc. (‘‘East Texas’’)
of Marshall, Texas. The complainant
requested that the Commission issue a
limited exclusion order and cease and
desist orders.
On August 7, 2008, Anchor, Schutt
and East Texas filed a joint motion
seeking termination of this investigation
based upon a settlement agreement. On
August 27, 2008, the ALJ issued an
initial determination, Order No. 6,
terminating the investigation on the
basis of the settlement agreement. The
ALJ found no indication that
termination of the investigation on the
basis of the settlement agreement would
adversely affect the public interest, and
that the procedural requirements for
terminating the investigation had been
met. No petitions for review were filed.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:26 Sep 23, 2008
Jkt 214001
The Commission has determined not
to review the subject ID. The authority
for the Commission’s determination is
contained in section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.
1337), and in section 210.42 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 18, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–22302 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–458 and 731–
TA–1154 (Preliminary)]
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From China
Determinations
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject investigations, the United
States International Trade Commission
(Commission) determines, pursuant to
sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and
1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a
reasonable indication that an industry
in the United States is materially
injured by reason of imports from China
of certain kitchen appliance shelving
and racks, provided for in subheadings
7321.90.50, 7321.90.60, 8418.99.80, and
8516.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States, that are
alleged to be subsidized by the
Government of China and sold in the
United States at less than fair value
(LTFV).2
Commencement of Final Phase
Investigations
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the
Commission’s rules, the Commission
also gives notice of the commencement
of the final phase of its investigations.
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 affirmative preliminary
determinations in these investigations
under sections 703(b) and 733(b) of the
Act, or, if the preliminary
determinations are negative, upon
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 Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun recused
herself to avoid any conflict of interest or
appearance of a conflict.
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
notice of affirmative final
determinations in these investigations
under sections 705(a) and 735(a) of the
Act. Parties that filed entries of
appearance in the preliminary phase of
the investigations need not enter a
separate appearance for the final phase
of the investigations. Industrial users,
and, if the merchandise under
investigations 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 investigations.
Background
On July 31, 2008, a petition was filed
with the Commission and Commerce by
Nashville Wire Products Inc., Nashville,
TN, SSW Holding Company, Inc.,
Elizabethtown, KY, and the United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, AlliedIndustrial and Service Workers
International Union, and the
International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, District Loge 6,
Clinton, IA., alleging that an industry in
the United States is materially injured
and threatened with material injury by
reason of imports of certain kitchen
appliance shelving and racks from
China allegedly subsidized by the
government of China and sold at less
than fair value. Accordingly, effective
July 31, 2008, the Commission
instituted countervailing duty
investigation No. 701–TA–458
(Preliminary) and antidumping duty
investigation No. 731–TA–1154
(Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the
Commission’s investigations 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 August 7, 2008 (73
FR 46033). The conference was held in
Washington, DC, on August 21, 2008,
and all persons who requested the
opportunity were permitted to appear in
person or by counsel.
The Commission transmitted its
determinations in these investigations to
the Secretary of Commerce on
September 15, 2008. The views of the
Commission are contained in USITC
Publication 4035 (September 2008),
entitled Certain Kitchen Appliance
Shelving and Racks from China:
Investigation Nos. 701–TA–458 and
731–TA–1154 (Preliminary).
E:\FR\FM\24SEN1.SGM
24SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55131-55132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22302]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-622]
In the Matter of Certain Base Plugs; Notice of Commission
Decision Not to Review an Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion
To Terminate Investigation
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 the presiding administrative
law judge's (``ALJ'') initial determination
[[Page 55132]]
(``ID'') (Order No. 6) granting a joint motion to terminate the above-
captioned investigation as to all Respondents.
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. Copies of the
ALJ's IDs and all other 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 at 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: On December 19, 2007, the Commission
instituted this investigation, based on a complaint filed by Anchor
Sports I, Inc. of Richardson, Texas (``Anchor''). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into
the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of certain base plugs by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,142,882. The
complaint, as supplemented, further alleges that an industry in the
United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complaint named two firms as respondents, Schutt Sports, Inc. of
Litchfield, Illinois (``Schutt''), and East Texas Sports Center, Inc.
(``East Texas'') of Marshall, Texas. The complainant requested that the
Commission issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
On August 7, 2008, Anchor, Schutt and East Texas filed a joint
motion seeking termination of this investigation based upon a
settlement agreement. On August 27, 2008, the ALJ issued an initial
determination, Order No. 6, terminating the investigation on the basis
of the settlement agreement. The ALJ found no indication that
termination of the investigation on the basis of the settlement
agreement would adversely affect the public interest, and that the
procedural requirements for terminating the investigation had been met.
No petitions for review were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The
authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in
section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 18, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-22302 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
