Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof Determination To Review in Part ALJ Initial Determination; Denial of Temporary Relief, 71354-71355 [2011-29665]

Download as PDF 71354 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 222 / Thursday, November 17, 2011 / Notices The ROD is also available at the following Web site: https:// www.ca.blm.gov/barstow. Rich Rotte, Project Lead, telephone (760) 252–6026; address BLM–Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, California 92311; email rrotte@blm.gov. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– (800) 877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC filed an application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1761) (FLPMA) for a ROW authorization on BLM-managed lands to build an Electrical Multiple Unit (EMU) high-speed passenger rail line in compliance with the FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable Federal laws. The railway would extend approximately 200 miles from Victorville, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada. When completed, this project will impact approximately 972 acres of public land. Additionally, 50 acres of public land will be temporarily impacted during construction. The project also includes stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, with associated operations, maintenance, and storage facilities. The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) was the lead agency for the environmental review of this project. The BLM participated as a cooperating agency. A Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register by the FRA on April 1, 2011. The FRA signed a ROD on July 8, 2011, approving construction of the DesertXpress Project, which is available online at https://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/ freight/1703.shtml. The preferred alternative was selected jointly by the BLM and the FRA in the Final EIS. The FRA and BLM both selected this alternative and approved it in their respective RODs. In the preferred alternative, the ROW will allow the tracks to be located within or immediately adjacent to the ROW for the Interstate-15 (I–15) freeway. Between Mountain Pass, California, and Primm, Nevada, the tracks will leave the I–15 ROW and travel through new tunnels in the mountains northwest of I–15, then overland until rejoining the I–15 ROW near Primm. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:25 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 226001 The BLM has adopted all reasonable mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIS regarding public lands. The project area is managed by the BLM in accordance with the California Desert Conservation Area Plan and the Las Vegas Field Office Resource Management Plan. The Preferred Alternative is consistent with both of these plans. Any party adversely affected by BLM’s decision may appeal within 30 days of the date of this notice pursuant to 43 CFR part 4, subpart E. The appeal should state the specific portions of the BLM’s decision that is being appealed. The appeal must be filed with the California State Director at 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. According to regulation, BLM decisions issued under 43 CFR part 2800 are and remain in effect pending appeal. (43 CFR 2801.10(b)). Please consult the appropriate regulations (43 CFR part 4, subpart E) for further requirements. Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6. James W. Keeler, Acting Deputy State Director. [FR Doc. 2011–29787 Filed 11–16–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–40–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–777] Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof Determination To Review in Part ALJ Initial Determination; Denial of Temporary Relief U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on August 31, 2011, denying complainants’ motion for temporary relief. The Commission has determined not to review the ID’s denial of temporary relief and its analyses of irreparable harm. On review, the Commission has determined to take no position on the remainder of the ID. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin D.E. Joffre, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2550. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 June 17, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Thompson/Center Arms Company, Inc. (‘‘T/C’’) and Smith & Wesson Corp. (‘‘Smith & Wesson’’) of Springfield, Massachusetts (‘‘Complainants’’). 76 FR 35469 (Jun. 17, 2011). The complainants named seven respondents: (1) Dikar Sociedad Cooperativa Limitada of Bergara, Spain; (2) Blackpowder Products Inc. of Duluth, Georgia; (3) Connecticut Valley Arms of Duluth, Georgia; (4) Bergara Barrels North America of Duluth, Georgia; (5) Bergara Barrels Europe of Bergara, Spain; (6) Ardesa Firearms of Zamudio (Vizcaya), Spain; and (7) Traditional Sporting Goods, Inc., d/b/a Traditions Sporting Firearms of Saybrook, Connecticut. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain muzzle-loading firearms and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,908,781 (‘‘the ‘781 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 7,814,694 (‘‘the ‘694 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 7,140,138 (‘‘the ‘138 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 6,604,311 (‘‘the ‘311 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 5,782,030 (‘‘the ‘030 patent’’); and U.S. Patent No. 5,639,981 (‘‘the ‘981 patent’’). On July 8, 2011, the ALJ granted Complainants’ motion to partially terminate the investigation as to the ‘781 and ‘138 patents. Order No. 7 (July 8, 2011), Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review (July 22, 2011). The Complainants also filed with their complaint in this investigation a motion for temporary relief directed only to respondents Traditions and Ardesa (collectively, ‘‘TEO Respondents’’) that requested the Commission to issue a temporary limited exclusion order and temporary cease and desist orders. The E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM 17NON1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 222 / Thursday, November 17, 2011 / Notices Complainants’ motion for temporary relief initially addressed the ‘781, ‘694, ‘138, ‘030, and ‘981 patents. During the initial pre-hearing conference, however, the parties entered into a stipulation that limited the Complainants’ motion to the ‘694 patent—specifically, claims 1, 10 and 11. The Initial Determination (‘‘ID’’) at issue is the ALJ’s denial of the Complainants’ motion. In the subject ID, the ALJ analyzed the four factors for determining whether to grant preliminary relief: The likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of hardships, and the public interest. The ID found that the Complainants had not demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm. Specifically, the ID found that the Complainants failed to demonstrate an irreparable harm from the following: (1) Price erosion; (2) exclusivity erosion; (3) loss of goodwill and reputation; (4) lost sales and market share; or (5) reduced investment. The ALJ found that the lack of irreparable harm precluded temporary relief in this investigation. The ALJ also found the following: a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to claim 10 of the ‘694 patent; that the balance of hardships did not favor either party; and that the public interest would not preclude preliminary relief. On September 12, 2011, the TEO Respondents filed opening comments and on September 14, 2011, the Complainants submitted reply comments as authorized by 19 CFR 210.66(c), (e)(1). These comments do not take issue with the ALJ’s findings regarding the lack of irreparable harm. Instead, the comments principally deal with Complainants’ likelihood of success on the merits, challenging various aspects of the ALJ’s analyses of infringement and the balance of hardships. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s ID and the subsequent comments and reply comments, the Commission finds that irreparable harm has not been demonstrated. It was Complainants’ burden to demonstrate that such harm was likely absent temporary relief, and it failed to meet that burden. Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 375 (2008). The Commission has therefore determined not to review the ID’s finding of lack of irreparable harm and the ID’s denial of temporary relief. Because irreparable harm is dispositive here, the Commission need not evaluate the remaining factors, i.e., the likelihood of success on the merits, the balance of hardships, or the public interest. Therefore, the Commission has VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:25 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 226001 determined to review the ID’s findings on the likelihood of success, the balance of hardships, and the public interest and to take no position on them. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 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 210.66 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.66). By order of the Commission. Issued: November 10, 2011. James Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–29665 Filed 11–16–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division, in United States et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00123. On November 8, 2011, the United States and the State of Montana filed a Complaint challenging an agreement between Blue Cross and five of the six hospital owners of New West Health Services, Inc., a competing insurer, to purchase health insurance from Blue Cross exclusively for six years. The hospital defendants are Billings Clinic, Bozeman Deaconess Health Services, Inc., Community Medical Center, Inc., Northern Montana Health Care, Inc., and St. Peter’s Hospital. The Complaint alleges that the agreement unreasonably restrains trade in the sale of commercial health insurance in Billings, Bozeman, Helena, and Missoula, Montana, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and that the agreement substantially lessens competition in the sale of commercial health insurance in those same areas, and will likely continue to do so, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18 and the Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act, Mont. Code Ann. § 30–14–205. A Competitive Impact Statement filed by the United States describes the PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 71355 Complaint, the proposed Final Judgment, the industry, and the remedies available to private litigants who may have been injured by the alleged violation. Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: (202) 514–2481), on the Department of Justice’s Web site at https:// www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations. Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, and responses thereto, will be published in the Federal Register and filed with the Court. Comments should be directed to Joshua H. Soven, Chief, Litigation I Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: (202) 307–0827). Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement. In the United States District Court for the District of Montana Billings Division United States of America and State of Montana, Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., Billings Clinic, Bozeman Deaconess Health Services, Inc., Community Medical Center, Inc., New West Health Services, Inc., Northern Montana Health Care, Inc., and St. Peter’s Hospital, Defendants. Case No. 1:11–cv–00123–RFC Complaint The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, and the State of Montana, acting under the direction of the Montana Attorney General, bring this civil antitrust action to enjoin an anticompetitive agreement (the ‘‘Agreement’’) between defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. (‘‘Blue Cross’’) and defendants Billings Clinic; Bozeman Deaconess Health Services, Inc.; Community Medical Center, Inc.; Northern Montana Health Care, Inc.; and St. Peter’s Hospital (collectively, the ‘‘hospital defendants’’), and to remedy the harm to competition that the announcement and E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM 17NON1

Agencies

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71354-71355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29665]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-777]


Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof 
Determination To Review in Part ALJ Initial Determination; Denial of 
Temporary Relief

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review in part the initial determination 
(``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on 
August 31, 2011, denying complainants' motion for temporary relief. The 
Commission has determined not to review the ID's denial of temporary 
relief and its analyses of irreparable harm. On review, the Commission 
has determined to take no position on the remainder of the ID.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin D.E. Joffre, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2550. 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 June 17, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Thompson/Center Arms 
Company, Inc. (``T/C'') and Smith & Wesson Corp. (``Smith & Wesson'') 
of Springfield, Massachusetts (``Complainants''). 76 FR 35469 (Jun. 17, 
2011). The complainants named seven respondents: (1) Dikar Sociedad 
Cooperativa Limitada of Bergara, Spain; (2) Blackpowder Products Inc. 
of Duluth, Georgia; (3) Connecticut Valley Arms of Duluth, Georgia; (4) 
Bergara Barrels North America of Duluth, Georgia; (5) Bergara Barrels 
Europe of Bergara, Spain; (6) Ardesa Firearms of Zamudio (Vizcaya), 
Spain; and (7) Traditional Sporting Goods, Inc., d/b/a Traditions 
Sporting Firearms of Saybrook, Connecticut. The complaint alleges 
violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United 
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States 
after importation of certain muzzle-loading firearms and components 
thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 
7,908,781 (``the `781 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 7,814,694 (``the `694 
patent''); U.S. Patent No. 7,140,138 (``the `138 patent''); U.S. Patent 
No. 6,604,311 (``the `311 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 5,782,030 (``the 
`030 patent''); and U.S. Patent No. 5,639,981 (``the `981 patent''). On 
July 8, 2011, the ALJ granted Complainants' motion to partially 
terminate the investigation as to the `781 and `138 patents. Order No. 
7 (July 8, 2011), Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review 
(July 22, 2011).
    The Complainants also filed with their complaint in this 
investigation a motion for temporary relief directed only to 
respondents Traditions and Ardesa (collectively, ``TEO Respondents'') 
that requested the Commission to issue a temporary limited exclusion 
order and temporary cease and desist orders. The

[[Page 71355]]

Complainants' motion for temporary relief initially addressed the `781, 
`694, `138, `030, and `981 patents. During the initial pre-hearing 
conference, however, the parties entered into a stipulation that 
limited the Complainants' motion to the `694 patent--specifically, 
claims 1, 10 and 11. The Initial Determination (``ID'') at issue is the 
ALJ's denial of the Complainants' motion. In the subject ID, the ALJ 
analyzed the four factors for determining whether to grant preliminary 
relief: The likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the 
balance of hardships, and the public interest.
    The ID found that the Complainants had not demonstrated that they 
would suffer irreparable harm. Specifically, the ID found that the 
Complainants failed to demonstrate an irreparable harm from the 
following: (1) Price erosion; (2) exclusivity erosion; (3) loss of 
goodwill and reputation; (4) lost sales and market share; or (5) 
reduced investment. The ALJ found that the lack of irreparable harm 
precluded temporary relief in this investigation. The ALJ also found 
the following: a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to 
claim 10 of the `694 patent; that the balance of hardships did not 
favor either party; and that the public interest would not preclude 
preliminary relief.
    On September 12, 2011, the TEO Respondents filed opening comments 
and on September 14, 2011, the Complainants submitted reply comments as 
authorized by 19 CFR 210.66(c), (e)(1). These comments do not take 
issue with the ALJ's findings regarding the lack of irreparable harm. 
Instead, the comments principally deal with Complainants' likelihood of 
success on the merits, challenging various aspects of the ALJ's 
analyses of infringement and the balance of hardships.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's ID and the subsequent comments and reply comments, the Commission 
finds that irreparable harm has not been demonstrated. It was 
Complainants' burden to demonstrate that such harm was likely absent 
temporary relief, and it failed to meet that burden. Winter v. Natural 
Res. Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 375 (2008). The Commission 
has therefore determined not to review the ID's finding of lack of 
irreparable harm and the ID's denial of temporary relief.
    Because irreparable harm is dispositive here, the Commission need 
not evaluate the remaining factors, i.e., the likelihood of success on 
the merits, the balance of hardships, or the public interest. 
Therefore, the Commission has determined to review the ID's findings on 
the likelihood of success, the balance of hardships, and the public 
interest and to take no position on them. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet 
Oy, 742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
    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 210.66 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
(19 CFR 210.66).


    By order of the Commission.

     Issued: November 10, 2011.
James Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-29665 Filed 11-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.