In the Matter of Certain Automotive Vehicles and Designs Therefore; Notice of Commission Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders Against Infringing Products of Respondents Found in Default; Termination of Investigation, 14070-14072 [2011-5999]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14070
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
of Wisconsin; Saginaw Chippewa Indian
Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan;
Sokaogon Chippewa Community,
Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of
Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and
White Earth Band of the Minnesota
Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘The Tribes’’).
On October 21, 2010, the Office of the
State Archaeologist received a letter
from the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians requesting
disposition of the human remains and
associated funerary objects from Fayette
Historic State Park. However, the
associated funerary objects are not part
of this disposition. The Little Traverse
Bay Bands of Odawa Indians expressed
interest in the remains, but had no
objections to the disposition to the Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
and did not submit a request for
disposition. No objections or other
disposition requests from the Indian
Tribes that have Delta County, MI, as
their aboriginal land have been
received.
History and Description of the Remains
In 1972, human remains representing
a minimum of seven individuals were
removed from Fayette State Historic
Park, in Delta County, MI, by Dr. Marla
Buckmaster, an archeologist at Northern
Michigan University, in cooperation
with State park officials. In 1993, Dr.
Buckmaster transferred the remains and
entire assemblage, except for some
potsherds, to the Office of the State
Archaeologist, which manages cultural
resources on State-owned lands. No
known individuals were identified. No
associated funerary objects are being
transferred.
Prior to 1972, a cranium at the base
of a cliff found by a visitor to the Fayette
State Historic Park was sent to the
University of Michigan; this cranium is
not part of the Office of the State
Archaeologist’s collection. Later, park
officials determined that human
remains were eroding out of a small
cave in the cliff, about 20 feet above the
shoreline of Snailshell Harbor. Dr.
Buckmaster found that the human
remains were incomplete secondary
burials covered with a layer of rocks.
The mandibles were lying together in a
niche at the back of the shallow cave. It
is likely that part of the cave and some
of the human remains were destroyed
either by erosion or by quarrying that
took place on the cliff in the 19th
century. The use of caves for burial was
a practice of Native Americans in the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan for at least
2,000 years. A Middle Woodland camp
is located across the harbor from the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
burial cave at Fayette State Historic
Park. The types of funerary objects
found in the cave are consistent with
the Middle Woodland period (circa 100
B.C. to circa 400 A.D.). In 1994, David
Barondess, physical anthropologist at
Michigan State University, examined
the remains and found that some of the
teeth were shovel-shaped incisors.
In 1986, human remains representing
a minimum of one individual were
removed from Fayette State Historic
Park, in Delta County, MI. The remains
were limited to a few fragments that
were unearthed while archeologists
from the Office of the State
Archaeologist were looking for the
former porch foundations on the mid19th century Supervisor’s House, a
historic building in the park. In 2001,
one additional bone was found while
working on the foundation of House 3,
another historic structure close to the
Supervisor’s House. It is uncertain if
these remains are from the same
individual, but the single additional
bone may be associated with the 1986
fragments based on its proximity to
them. Therefore, the park believes that
the 1986 fragments and 2001 bone
belong to one individual. No known
individual was identified. No associated
funerary objects are present.
The earliest known Euro-American
settlement in this location dates to the
mid-19th century. The bones were
included in soil that had been disturbed
when the foundation of the Supervisor’s
House was built in the 1860s. This
suggests that house construction had
damaged all or part of an older grave.
The condition of the bones suggested
great age. A Middle Woodland camp
was located on this side of the park, and
Middle Woodland burials were found in
a cave across the harbor. It seems likely
that the human remains around the two
houses date to the same period, and,
therefore, are Native American. At the
time the human remains were removed,
the land was the property of the State
of Michigan.
Determinations Made by the Office of
the State Archaeologist
Officials of the Office of the State
Archaeologist have determined that:
• For the human remains removed in
1972, the burial practices, types of
funerary objects, and the shovel-shaped
incisors are all indicative of Native
American remains. For the human
remains removed in 1986 and 2001,
based on the manner of disturbance, age
of the remains, proximity and location,
the remains are believed to represent
one Native American individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a
relationship of shared group identity
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
cannot be reasonably traced between the
Native American human remains and
associated funerary objects and any
present-day Indian Tribe.
• At the time the remains were
removed, the sites were on State-owned
land within the aboriginal territory of
The Tribes, as indicated by 19th-century
treaties (see ‘‘Present-Day Tribes
Associated with Indian Land Cessions
1784–1894’’ database on the National
Park Service’s National NAGPRA
Program Web site.)
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the
human remains described above
represent the physical remains of a
minimum of eight individuals of Native
American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the
disposition of the human remains is to
the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa
Indians of Michigan.
Additional Requestors and Disposition
Representatives of any Indian Tribe
that believes itself to be culturally
affiliated with the human remains and/
or associated funerary objects, or any
other Indian Tribe that believes it
satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR
10.11(c)(1) should contact the Office of
the State Archaeologist’s representative,
Scott M. Grammer, Michigan State
Historic Preservation Office, P.O. Box
30740, 702 W. Kalamazoo St., Lansing,
MI 48909–8240, telephone (517) 373–
4765, before April 14, 2011. Disposition
of the human remains to the Sault Ste.
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of
Michigan may proceed after that date if
no additional requestors come forward.
The Office of the State Archaeologist
is responsible for notifying The Tribes
that this notice has been published.
Dated: March 9, 2011.
Sherry Hutt,
Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
[FR Doc. 2011–5866 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–50–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–722]
In the Matter of Certain Automotive
Vehicles and Designs Therefore;
Notice of Commission Issuance of
Limited Exclusion Order and Cease
and Desist Orders Against Infringing
Products of Respondents Found in
Default; Termination of Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has terminated the abovecaptioned investigation under section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and has
issued the following remedial orders
against respondents previously found in
default: a cease and desist order against
infringing products of Vehicles Online,
Inc. (‘‘Vehicles’’) of Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a limited exclusion order
and a cease and desist order against
infringing products of Shanghai Tandem
Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai
Tandem’’) of China.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2310. 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 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: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on June 17, 2010, based on a complaint
filed by Chrysler Group LLC (‘‘Chrysler’’)
of Auburn Hills, Michigan. 75 FR
34483–84 (June 17, 2010). The
complaint alleges violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 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
certain automotive vehicles and designs
therefor by reason of infringement of
U.S. Patent No. D513,395 (‘‘the ’395
patent’’). The complaint further alleges
the existence of a domestic industry.
The Commission’s notice of
investigation named several
respondents including Vehicles, Boat N
RV Supercenter (‘‘Boat N RV’’) of
Rockwood, Tennessee, and Shanghai
Tandem.
On July 7, 2010, Chrysler moved,
pursuant to 19 CFR 210.16, for: (1) An
order directing respondents Vehicles
and Boat N RV to show cause why they
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
should not be found in default for
failure to respond to the complaint and
notice of investigation as required by 19
CFR 210.13, and (2) the issuance of an
initial determination (‘‘ID’’) finding
Vehicles and Boat N RV in default upon
their failure to show cause. On July 19,
2010, the ALJ issued Order No. 8, which
required Vehicles and Boat N RV to
show cause no later than August 2,
2010, as to why they should not be held
in default and judgment rendered
against them pursuant to § 210.16. Boat
N RV responded to Order No. 8, but no
response was received from Vehicles.
The presiding administrative law
judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued an ID on August 11,
2010, finding Vehicles in default,
pursuant to §§ 210.13 and 210.16,
because Vehicles did not respond to the
complaint and notice of investigation or
to Order No. 8’s instruction to show
cause. On September 9, 2010, the
Commission issued notice of its
determination not to review the ALJ’s ID
finding Vehicles in default.
On August 19, 2010, Chrysler moved,
pursuant to § 210.16, for: (1) An order
directing respondent Shanghai Tandem
to show cause why it should not be
found in default for failure to respond
to the complaint and notice of
investigation as required by § 210.13,
and (2) the issuance of an ID finding
Shanghai Tandem in default upon its
failure to show cause. On August 31,
2010, the ALJ issued Order No. 12,
which required Shanghai Tandem to
show cause no later than September 14,
2010, as to why it should not be held
in default and judgment rendered
against it pursuant to § 210.16.
The ALJ issued an ID on September
22, 2010, finding Shanghai Tandem in
default, pursuant to §§ 210.13 and
210.16, because Shanghai Tandem did
not respond to the complaint and notice
of investigation or to Order No. 12’s
instruction to show cause. On October
14, 2010, the Commission issued notice
of its determination not to review the
ALJ’s ID finding Shanghai Tandem in
default.
On October 29, 2010, complainant
Chrysler filed declarations requesting
immediate relief against the defaulting
respondents. On November 15, 2010,
the Commission determined not to
review an ID (Order No. 17) terminating
the last remaining respondents,
including Boat N RV, on the basis of a
consent order. On November 29, 2010,
the Commission issued a Notice that
requested briefing from interested
parties on remedy, the public interest,
and bonding with respect to
respondents found in default. 75 FR
75184–85 (Dec. 2, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14071
Chrysler and the Commission
investigative attorney submitted briefing
responsive to the Commission’s request
on December 6 and 14, 2010,
respectively. Each proposed a cease and
desist order directed to Vehicles’
infringing products, and a limited
exclusion order and a cease and desist
order directed to Shanghai Tandem’s
infringing products. Neither party
requested bonding during the period of
Presidential review.
The Commission found that the
statutory requirements of section
337(g)(1)(A)–(E) (19 U.S.C.
1337(g)(1)(A)–(E)) were met with respect
to the defaulting respondents.
Accordingly, pursuant to section
337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and
Commission rule 210.16(c) (19 CFR
210.16(c)), the Commission presumed
the facts alleged in the complaint to be
true. The Commission has determined
that the appropriate form of relief is the
following: (1) Cease and desist orders
prohibiting Vehicles and Shanghai
Tandem from conducting any of the
following activities in the United States:
importing, selling, marketing,
advertising, distributing, offering for
sale, transferring (except for
exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents
or distributors for automotive vehicles
and designs therefor that infringe the
’395 patent; and (2) a limited exclusion
order prohibiting the unlicensed entry
of automotive vehicles and designs
therefore that infringe the ’395 patent,
which are manufactured abroad by or on
behalf of, or are imported by or on
behalf of, Shanghai Tandem, or any of
its affiliated companies, parents,
subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or
other related business entities, or its
successors or assigns.
The Commission has further
determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in section 337(g)(1)
(19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) do not preclude
issuance of the limited exclusion order
or the cease and desist orders. Finally,
the Commission has determined that no
bond is required during the period of
Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
The Commission’s orders were
delivered to the President and to the
United States Trade Representative on
the day of their issuance.
The Commission has 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 in sections 210.16(c) and
210.41 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.16(c) and 210.41).
By order of the Commission.
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
14072
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices
Issued: March 10, 2011.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2011–5999 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
National Institute of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
[OMB Number 1121–NEW]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comments Requested
60-Day Notice of Information
Collection Under Review: Teen Dating
Relationships: Opportunities for Youth
To Define What’s Healthy and
Unhealthy.
ACTION:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
The Department of Justice (DOJ),
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and
Office of Justice Programs (OJP) will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The proposed information collection is
published to obtain comments from the
public and affected agencies. Comments
are encouraged and will be accepted for
‘‘sixty days’’ until May 16, 2011. This
process is conducted in accordance with
5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on
the estimated public burden or
associated response time, suggestions,
or need a copy of the proposed
information collection instrument with
instructions or additional information,
please contact Carrie Mulford, National
Institute of Justice, 810 7th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20531.
Written comments concerning this
information collection should be sent to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best
way to ensure your comments are
received is to e-mail them to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or fax
them to 202–395–7285. All comments
should reference the 8 digit OMB
number for the collection or the title of
the collection. If you have questions
concerning the collection, please call
Carrie Mulford at 202–307–2959 or the
DOJ Desk Officer at 202–395–3176.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
concerning the proposed collection of
information are encouraged. Your
comments should address one or more
of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
New collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Teen
Dating Relationships: Opportunities for
Youth To Define What’s Healthy and
Unhealthy.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the
Department of Justice sponsoring the
collection: Form Number: ATF F 3312.1
and ATF F 3312.2. National Institute of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Youth, ages 11–22
and adult practitioners, advocates and
researchers in professions related to
youth and youth relationships. A recent
review of the teen dating violence
research indicated that youth are rarely
involved in research designed to better
understand this issue. The purpose of
this data collection is to better
Preteens
(11–13)
Task
Teens
(14–18)
understand how youth conceptualize
healthy and unhealthy dating
relationships by intentionally involving
youth in the research process. In the
first phase of the study, concept
mapping will be used to create a visual
representation of the ways youth and
adults perceive teen dating
relationships. Concept mapping is a
well-documented method of applied
research that makes explicit, implicit
theoretical models that can be used for
planning and action. The process
requires respondents to brainstorm a set
of statements relevant to the topic of
interest (‘‘brainstorming’’ task),
individually sort these statements into
piles based on perceived similarity
(‘‘sorting’’ task), rate each statement on
one or more scales (‘‘rating’’ task), and
interpret the graphical representation
that result from several multivariate
analyses. The collection of data for all
concept mapping activities will be
facilitated via a dedicated project Web
site. The second phase of the study
includes a series of eight face-to-face
facilitated discussions with relevant
stakeholder groups, practitioners,
researchers and youth. Guiding
questions and discussion prompts,
derived from the concept mapping
results, will be used to gather
information from the respondents on the
meaning and potential use of the
concept mapping results. This input
will be aggregated and linked to the
emerging conceptual framework that
will result in a better understanding of
adolescent relationship features,
including the range of healthy,
unhealthy, and abusive characteristics,
from the standpoint of youth, and
determine how prevention and
intervention efforts can effectively target
relationship characteristics related to
abusive behavior.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: It is estimated that 400
respondents total will participate in the
concept mapping phase of this
collection, and that 80 respondents total
will participate in the facilitated
discussions. The table below shows the
estimated number of respondents for
each portion of the collection:
Young adults
(19–22)
Total task
target
Adults
Concept Mapping Participation Targets
Brainstorming .......................................................................
Sorting ..................................................................................
Rating ...................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00105
50
0
0
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
100
25
125
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
100
25
125
15MRN1
150
50
150
400
100
400
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14070-14072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5999]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-722]
In the Matter of Certain Automotive Vehicles and Designs
Therefore; Notice of Commission Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and
Cease and Desist Orders Against Infringing Products of Respondents
Found in Default; Termination of Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14071]]
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has terminated the above-captioned investigation under
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and
has issued the following remedial orders against respondents previously
found in default: a cease and desist order against infringing products
of Vehicles Online, Inc. (``Vehicles'') of Charlotte, North Carolina,
and a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against
infringing products of Shanghai Tandem Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai
Tandem'') of China.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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 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: The Commission instituted this investigation
on June 17, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Chrysler Group LLC
(``Chrysler'') of Auburn Hills, Michigan. 75 FR 34483-84 (June 17,
2010). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 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 certain automotive vehicles and designs
therefor by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. D513,395 (``the
'395 patent''). The complaint further alleges the existence of a
domestic industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named
several respondents including Vehicles, Boat N RV Supercenter (``Boat N
RV'') of Rockwood, Tennessee, and Shanghai Tandem.
On July 7, 2010, Chrysler moved, pursuant to 19 CFR 210.16, for:
(1) An order directing respondents Vehicles and Boat N RV to show cause
why they should not be found in default for failure to respond to the
complaint and notice of investigation as required by 19 CFR 210.13, and
(2) the issuance of an initial determination (``ID'') finding Vehicles
and Boat N RV in default upon their failure to show cause. On July 19,
2010, the ALJ issued Order No. 8, which required Vehicles and Boat N RV
to show cause no later than August 2, 2010, as to why they should not
be held in default and judgment rendered against them pursuant to Sec.
210.16. Boat N RV responded to Order No. 8, but no response was
received from Vehicles.
The presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') issued an ID on
August 11, 2010, finding Vehicles in default, pursuant to Sec. Sec.
210.13 and 210.16, because Vehicles did not respond to the complaint
and notice of investigation or to Order No. 8's instruction to show
cause. On September 9, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its
determination not to review the ALJ's ID finding Vehicles in default.
On August 19, 2010, Chrysler moved, pursuant to Sec. 210.16, for:
(1) An order directing respondent Shanghai Tandem to show cause why it
should not be found in default for failure to respond to the complaint
and notice of investigation as required by Sec. 210.13, and (2) the
issuance of an ID finding Shanghai Tandem in default upon its failure
to show cause. On August 31, 2010, the ALJ issued Order No. 12, which
required Shanghai Tandem to show cause no later than September 14,
2010, as to why it should not be held in default and judgment rendered
against it pursuant to Sec. 210.16.
The ALJ issued an ID on September 22, 2010, finding Shanghai Tandem
in default, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 210.13 and 210.16, because Shanghai
Tandem did not respond to the complaint and notice of investigation or
to Order No. 12's instruction to show cause. On October 14, 2010, the
Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's
ID finding Shanghai Tandem in default.
On October 29, 2010, complainant Chrysler filed declarations
requesting immediate relief against the defaulting respondents. On
November 15, 2010, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order
No. 17) terminating the last remaining respondents, including Boat N
RV, on the basis of a consent order. On November 29, 2010, the
Commission issued a Notice that requested briefing from interested
parties on remedy, the public interest, and bonding with respect to
respondents found in default. 75 FR 75184-85 (Dec. 2, 2010).
Chrysler and the Commission investigative attorney submitted
briefing responsive to the Commission's request on December 6 and 14,
2010, respectively. Each proposed a cease and desist order directed to
Vehicles' infringing products, and a limited exclusion order and a
cease and desist order directed to Shanghai Tandem's infringing
products. Neither party requested bonding during the period of
Presidential review.
The Commission found that the statutory requirements of section
337(g)(1)(A)-(E) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)-(E)) were met with respect to
the defaulting respondents. Accordingly, pursuant to section 337(g)(1)
(19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission rule 210.16(c) (19 CFR
210.16(c)), the Commission presumed the facts alleged in the complaint
to be true. The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of
relief is the following: (1) Cease and desist orders prohibiting
Vehicles and Shanghai Tandem from conducting any of the following
activities in the United States: importing, selling, marketing,
advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for
exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for automotive
vehicles and designs therefor that infringe the '395 patent; and (2) a
limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of automotive
vehicles and designs therefore that infringe the '395 patent, which are
manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf
of, Shanghai Tandem, or any of its affiliated companies, parents,
subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related business
entities, or its successors or assigns.
The Commission has further determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) do not
preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order or the cease and
desist orders. Finally, the Commission has determined that no bond is
required during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
The Commission's orders were delivered to the President and to the
United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
The Commission has 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 in sections
210.16(c) and 210.41 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c) and 210.41).
By order of the Commission.
[[Page 14072]]
Issued: March 10, 2011.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2011-5999 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
