In the Matter of Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Related Intermediate Compounds Thereof; Notice of Commission Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of Investigation, 16426-16427 [E9-8154]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16426
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices
Agreement of the Settlement Agreement
on Operating Procedures for Green
Mountain Reservoir Concerning
Operating Limitations and in Resolution
of the Petition Filed August 7, 2003, in
Case No. 49–CV–2782 (The United
States v. Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, et al., U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado, Case
No. 2782 and Consolidated Case Nos.
5016 and 5017).
20. Colorado River Water
Conservation District, Colorado-Big
Thompson Project, Colorado:
Consideration of a request for a longterm contract for the use of excess
capacity for storage and exchange in
Green Mountain Reservoir in the
Colorado-Big Thompson Project.
21. Glendo Unit, P–SMBP, Wyoming:
Contract renewal for long-term water
service contracts with Burbank Ditch,
New Grattan Ditch Company,
Torrington ID, Lucerne Canal and Power
Company, and Wright and Murphy
Ditch Company.
22. Glendo Unit, P–SMBP, Nebraska:
Contract renewal for long-term water
service contracts with Bridgeport,
Enterprise, and Mitchell IDs.
23. Glendo Unit, P–SMBP, Wyoming:
Contract renewal for long-term water
storage contract with Pacificorp.
24. Roger W. Evans (Individual),
Boysen Unit, P–SMBP, Wyoming:
Renewal of long-term water service
contracts.
25. City of Beloit, P–SMBP, Kansas:
Contract renewal for M&I contract.
26. Individual Irrigators, Canyon
Ferry Unit, P–SMBP, Montana: Replace
temporary 1-year contracts with longterm water service contracts for minor
amounts of less than 1,000 acre-feet of
irrigation water annually from the
Missouri River below Canyon Ferry
Dam.
27. Individual Irrigators, Lower
Marias Unit, P–SMBP, Montana:
Execute long-term water service
contracts for commercial irrigation from
Lake Elwell and the Marias River below
Tiber Dam.
28. Turtle Lake ID, Garrison Diversion
Unit, North Dakota: Turtle Lake ID,
water users, and individual irrigators
have requested water service contracts,
which may be short- or long-term under
the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000.
29. Big Horn Canal ID, Boysen Unit,
P–SMBP, Wyoming: Big Horn Canal ID
has requested the renewal of their longterm water service contract.
30. Hanover ID, Boysen Unit, P–
SMBP, Wyoming: Hanover ID has
requested the renewal of their long-term
water service contract.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:39 Apr 09, 2009
Jkt 217001
31. LU Sheet Company, Boysen Unit,
P–SMBP, Wyoming: Contract renewal of
long-term water service contract.
32. Busch Farms, Inc., Boysen Unit,
P–SMBP, Wyoming: Contract renewal of
long-term water service contract.
33. Gorst Ranch, Boysen Unit, P–
SMBP, Wyoming: Contract renewal of
long-term water service contract.
34. Helena Sand & Gravel, Helena
valley Unit, P–SMBP, Montana: request
for a long-term water service contract for
M&I purposes up to 1,000 acre-feet per
year.
35. City of Cheyenne, Kendrick
Project, Wyoming: the of Cheyenne has
requested an amendment to its water
storage contract to increase the storage
entitlement to 15,700 acre-feet of storage
space in Seminoe Reservoir.
36. Central Nebraska Public Power
and ID, Glendo unit, P–SMBP,
Nebraska: Request to amend current
repayment contract.
37. Busk-Ivanhoe, Inc., FryingpanArkansas project, Colorado: Contract
renewal for their long-term carriage and
storage contract.
38. State of Colorado, Department of
Corrections, Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project, Colorado: Consideration of a
request for long-term excess capacity
storage out of Pueblo Reservoir.
39. Southeastern Water Conservancy
District, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project,
Colorado: Consideration of a master
storage contract.
The following actions have been
completed since the last publication of
this notice on November 20, 2008:
1. (8) Savage ID, P–SMBP, Montana:
The District is currently seeking title
transfer. The contract is subject to
renewal pending outcome of the title
transfer process. The existing interim
contract expired in May 2008. A 5-year
interim contract was offer to the District
on June 28, 2008. Contract executed
October 22, 2008.
2. (12) Individual irrigators, Heart
Butte Unit, P–SMBP, North Dakota:
Renew long-term water service contracts
for minor amounts of less than 1,000
acre-feet of irrigation water annually
from the Heart River below Heart Butte
Dam. Contracts executed between
February and April 2008.
February 11, 2009.
Roseann Gonzales,
Director, Policy and Program Services Denver
Office.
[FR Doc. E9–8189 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–604]
In the Matter of Certain Sucralose,
Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and
Related Intermediate Compounds
Thereof; Notice of Commission
Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order;
Termination of Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has issued a limited
exclusion order against eleven
respondents in the above-captioned
investigation under section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), and has
terminated the investigation.
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 May 10, 2007, based upon a
complaint filed on behalf of Tate & Lyle
Technology Ltd. of London, United
Kingdom, and Tate & Lyle Sucralose,
Inc. of Decatur, Illinois (collectively,
‘‘Tate & Lyle’’). The complaint alleged
violations of section 337(a)(1)(B) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in
the importation into the United States,
the sale for importation, and the sale
within the United States after
importation of sucralose, sweeteners
containing sucralose, and related
intermediate compounds thereof by
reason of infringement of various claims
of United States Patent Nos. 4,980,463
(‘‘the ‘463 patent’’); 5,470,969 (‘‘the ‘969
E:\FR\FM\10APN1.SGM
10APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices
patent’’); 5,034,551 (‘‘the ‘551 patent’’);
5,498,709 (‘‘the ‘709 patent’’); and
7,049,435 (‘‘the ‘435 patent’’). The
notice of investigation named twentyfive respondents.
On August 15, 2007, the Commission
issued notice of its determination not to
review an ID allowing JK Sucralose, Inc.
(‘‘JK Sucralose’’) to intervene as a
respondent in the investigation. On
August 30, 2007, the Commission issued
notice of its determination not to review
an ID terminating the investigation with
respect to ProFood International Inc. on
the basis of a consent order. On October
3, 2007, the Commission issued notice
of its determination not to review an ID
adding Heartland Sweeteners, LLC
(‘‘Heartland Sweeteners’’) as a
respondent in the investigation. The
respondents who remain parties to the
investigation are therefore: Changzhou
Niutang Chemical Plant Co.
(‘‘Changzhou Niutang Chemical’’);
Guangdong Food Industry Institute and
L&P Food Ingredient Co., Ltd.
(‘‘GDFII’’); Hebei Sukerui Science and
Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hebei Sukerui
Science’’); JK Sucralose; Beijing Forbest
Chemical Co., Ltd.; Beijing Forbest
Trade Co., Ltd.; Forbest International
USA, LLC; U.S. Niutang Chemical, Inc.;
Garuda International, Inc.; Heartland
Packaging Corporation; Heartland
Sweeteners; MTC Industries, Inc.;
Nantong Molecular Technology Co.,
Ltd.; AIDP, Inc.; Fortune Bridge Co., Inc.
(‘‘Fortune Bridge’’); Nu-Scaan
Nutraceuticals (‘‘Nu-Scaan’’); CJ
America, Inc. (‘‘CJ America’’); Vivion,
Inc. (‘‘Vivion’’); Gremount International
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Gremount’’); Hebei Province
Chemical Industry Academe (‘‘Hebei
Academe’’); Hebei Research Institute of
Chemical Industry (‘‘Hebei Research’’);
Lianyungang Natiprol (Int’l) Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Lianyungang Natiprol’’); Ruland
Chemistry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ruland’’);
Shanghai Aurisco Trading Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Shanghai Aurisco’’); and Zhongjin
Pharmaceutical (Hong Kong) Co.
(‘‘Zhongjin’’). Some of these
respondents have been found in default.
On September 22, 2008, the presiding
administrative law judge issued a final
initial determination (‘‘final ID’’) finding
no violation of section 337 (with the
exception of certain non-participating
and defaulted respondents). On October
6, 2008, Tate & Lyle, four sets of
respondents, and the Commission
investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) each filed
petitions for review. On November 21,
2008, the Commission issued notice of
its determination to review the final ID
in its entirety and requested briefing on
the issues on review and on remedy, the
public interest, and bonding, including
responses to certain questions.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:39 Apr 09, 2009
Jkt 217001
On review, the Commission found no
violation on the merits with respect to
the ‘463, ‘969, and ‘551 patents, for the
reasons set forth in the Commission
opinion. As to the ‘969 patent,
respondents Shanghai Aurisco and
Zhongjin were previously found to have
defaulted. Additionally, the
Commission found CJ America, Inc. to
have admitted infringement and to have
agreed to the entry of an exclusion order
as to the ‘969 patent. As to the ‘709 and
‘435 patents, respondents Gremount,
Hebei Academe, Lianyungang Natiprol,
Ruland, and Hebei Research were
previously found to have defaulted with
respect to the ‘709 and ‘435 patents, and
Shanghai Aurisco and Zhongjin were
previously found to have defaulted with
respect to the ‘709 patent. Additionally,
the Commission found CJ America to
have admitted infringement and to have
agreed to the entry of a remedial order
as to the ‘709 patent, that nonparticipating respondents Vivion and
Fortune Bridge were subject to adverse
inferences with respect to the ‘709 and
‘435 patents under Commission Rule
210.17, and that non-participating
respondent Nu-Scaan was subject to
adverse inferences with respect to the
‘709 patent under Commission Rule
210.17.
The Commission has determined that
the appropriate form of relief in this
investigation is a limited exclusion
order prohibiting the unlicensed entry
of certain sucralose and sweeteners
containing sucralose by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims
20, 21–26, 28, and 29 of the ‘969 patent
by Shanghai Aurisco, Zhongjin, and CJ
America; of claims 8, 9, and 13 of the
‘709 patent by Gremount, Hebei
Academe, Lianyungang Natiprol, Hebei
Research, Ruland, Shanghai Aurisco,
Zhongjin, CJ America, Nu-Scaan,
Vivion, and Fortune Bridge; and of
claim 1 of the ‘435 patent by Gremount,
Hebei Academe, Lianyungang Natiprol,
Ruland, Hebei Research, Vivion, and
Fortune Bridge, with the caveat that the
order not apply to sucralose supplied to
these respondents by the manufacturing
respondents who were found to either
not infringe or against whom
infringement allegations were
withdrawn as to the patents asserted in
the investigation. These manufacturing
respondents are Changzhou Niutang
Chemical, GDFII, Hebei Sukerui
Science, and JK Sucralose. The
Commission further determined that the
public interest factors enumerated in
section 337(d)(1),(g)(1), 19 U.S.C.
1337(d)(1),(g)(1), do not preclude
issuance of the limited exclusion order.
Finally, the Commission determined
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16427
that the bond under the limited
exclusion order during the Presidential
review period shall be in the amount of
100 percent of the entered value of the
imported articles. The Commission’s
orders were delivered to the President
and the United States Trade
Representative on the day of their
issuance.
The Commission has therefore
terminated this investigation. 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 sections
210.16(c) and 210.41–.42, 210.50 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c) and
210.41–.42, 210.50).
Issued: April 9, 2009.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–8154 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731–TA–1145 (Final)]
Certain Steel Threaded Rod From
China Determination
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject investigation, the United
States International Trade Commission
(Commission) determines, pursuant to
section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an
industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of imports
from China of certain steel threaded rod,
provided for in subheading 7318.15.50
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States, that have been found
by the Department of Commerce
(Commerce) to be sold in the United
States at less than fair value (LTFV).
Background
The Commission instituted this
investigation effective March 5, 2008,
following receipt of a petition filed with
the Commission and Commerce by
Vulcan Threaded Products, Pelham, AL.
The final phase of the investigation was
scheduled by the Commission following
notification of a preliminary
determination by Commerce that
imports of certain steel threaded rod
from China were being sold at LTFV
within the meaning of section 733(b) of
the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of
the scheduling of the final phase of the
1 The record is defined in section 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
E:\FR\FM\10APN1.SGM
10APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 68 (Friday, April 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16426-16427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8154]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-604]
In the Matter of Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing
Sucralose, and Related Intermediate Compounds Thereof; Notice of
Commission Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of
Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has issued a limited exclusion order against eleven
respondents in the above-captioned investigation under section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''),
and has terminated the investigation.
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 May 10, 2007, based upon a complaint filed on behalf of Tate & Lyle
Technology Ltd. of London, United Kingdom, and Tate & Lyle Sucralose,
Inc. of Decatur, Illinois (collectively, ``Tate & Lyle''). The
complaint alleged violations of section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after
importation of sucralose, sweeteners containing sucralose, and related
intermediate compounds thereof by reason of infringement of various
claims of United States Patent Nos. 4,980,463 (``the `463 patent'');
5,470,969 (``the `969
[[Page 16427]]
patent''); 5,034,551 (``the `551 patent''); 5,498,709 (``the `709
patent''); and 7,049,435 (``the `435 patent''). The notice of
investigation named twenty-five respondents.
On August 15, 2007, the Commission issued notice of its
determination not to review an ID allowing JK Sucralose, Inc. (``JK
Sucralose'') to intervene as a respondent in the investigation. On
August 30, 2007, the Commission issued notice of its determination not
to review an ID terminating the investigation with respect to ProFood
International Inc. on the basis of a consent order. On October 3, 2007,
the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review an ID
adding Heartland Sweeteners, LLC (``Heartland Sweeteners'') as a
respondent in the investigation. The respondents who remain parties to
the investigation are therefore: Changzhou Niutang Chemical Plant Co.
(``Changzhou Niutang Chemical''); Guangdong Food Industry Institute and
L&P Food Ingredient Co., Ltd. (``GDFII''); Hebei Sukerui Science and
Technology Co., Ltd. (``Hebei Sukerui Science''); JK Sucralose; Beijing
Forbest Chemical Co., Ltd.; Beijing Forbest Trade Co., Ltd.; Forbest
International USA, LLC; U.S. Niutang Chemical, Inc.; Garuda
International, Inc.; Heartland Packaging Corporation; Heartland
Sweeteners; MTC Industries, Inc.; Nantong Molecular Technology Co.,
Ltd.; AIDP, Inc.; Fortune Bridge Co., Inc. (``Fortune Bridge''); Nu-
Scaan Nutraceuticals (``Nu-Scaan''); CJ America, Inc. (``CJ America'');
Vivion, Inc. (``Vivion''); Gremount International Co., Ltd.
(``Gremount''); Hebei Province Chemical Industry Academe (``Hebei
Academe''); Hebei Research Institute of Chemical Industry (``Hebei
Research''); Lianyungang Natiprol (Int'l) Co., Ltd. (``Lianyungang
Natiprol''); Ruland Chemistry Co., Ltd. (``Ruland''); Shanghai Aurisco
Trading Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Aurisco''); and Zhongjin Pharmaceutical
(Hong Kong) Co. (``Zhongjin''). Some of these respondents have been
found in default.
On September 22, 2008, the presiding administrative law judge
issued a final initial determination (``final ID'') finding no
violation of section 337 (with the exception of certain non-
participating and defaulted respondents). On October 6, 2008, Tate &
Lyle, four sets of respondents, and the Commission investigative
attorney (``IA'') each filed petitions for review. On November 21,
2008, the Commission issued notice of its determination to review the
final ID in its entirety and requested briefing on the issues on review
and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding, including responses to
certain questions.
On review, the Commission found no violation on the merits with
respect to the `463, `969, and `551 patents, for the reasons set forth
in the Commission opinion. As to the `969 patent, respondents Shanghai
Aurisco and Zhongjin were previously found to have defaulted.
Additionally, the Commission found CJ America, Inc. to have admitted
infringement and to have agreed to the entry of an exclusion order as
to the `969 patent. As to the `709 and `435 patents, respondents
Gremount, Hebei Academe, Lianyungang Natiprol, Ruland, and Hebei
Research were previously found to have defaulted with respect to the
`709 and `435 patents, and Shanghai Aurisco and Zhongjin were
previously found to have defaulted with respect to the `709 patent.
Additionally, the Commission found CJ America to have admitted
infringement and to have agreed to the entry of a remedial order as to
the `709 patent, that non-participating respondents Vivion and Fortune
Bridge were subject to adverse inferences with respect to the `709 and
`435 patents under Commission Rule 210.17, and that non-participating
respondent Nu-Scaan was subject to adverse inferences with respect to
the `709 patent under Commission Rule 210.17.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief
in this investigation is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the
unlicensed entry of certain sucralose and sweeteners containing
sucralose by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 20, 21-26,
28, and 29 of the `969 patent by Shanghai Aurisco, Zhongjin, and CJ
America; of claims 8, 9, and 13 of the `709 patent by Gremount, Hebei
Academe, Lianyungang Natiprol, Hebei Research, Ruland, Shanghai
Aurisco, Zhongjin, CJ America, Nu-Scaan, Vivion, and Fortune Bridge;
and of claim 1 of the `435 patent by Gremount, Hebei Academe,
Lianyungang Natiprol, Ruland, Hebei Research, Vivion, and Fortune
Bridge, with the caveat that the order not apply to sucralose supplied
to these respondents by the manufacturing respondents who were found to
either not infringe or against whom infringement allegations were
withdrawn as to the patents asserted in the investigation. These
manufacturing respondents are Changzhou Niutang Chemical, GDFII, Hebei
Sukerui Science, and JK Sucralose. The Commission further determined
that the public interest factors enumerated in section
337(d)(1),(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1),(g)(1), do not preclude issuance
of the limited exclusion order. Finally, the Commission determined that
the bond under the limited exclusion order during the Presidential
review period shall be in the amount of 100 percent of the entered
value of the imported articles. The Commission's orders were delivered
to the President and the United States Trade Representative on the day
of their issuance.
The Commission has therefore terminated this investigation. 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
sections 210.16(c) and 210.41-.42, 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c) and 210.41-.42, 210.50).
Issued: April 9, 2009.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-8154 Filed 4-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE
