Certain Light Reflectors and Components, Packaging, and Related Advertising Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review Initial Determinations Granting Motions To Terminate the Investigation as to the Remaining Respondents; Termination of the Investigation in Its Entirety, 10713-10714 [2015-04089]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices
determination of Plan adequacy. Section
3405(e) of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (Title 34 Pub. L. 102–
575), requires the Secretary of the
Interior to establish and administer an
office on Central Valley Project water
conservation best management practices
that shall ‘‘develop criteria for
evaluating the adequacy of all water
conservation plans developed by project
contractors, including those plans
required by Section 210 of the
Reclamation Reform Act of 1982.’’ Also,
according to Section 3405(e)(1), these
criteria must be developed ‘‘with the
purpose of promoting the highest level
of water use efficiency reasonably
achievable by project contractors using
best available cost-effective technology
and best management practices.’’ These
criteria state that all parties
(Contractors) that contract with
Reclamation for water supplies
(municipal and industrial contracts over
2,000 acre-feet and agricultural
contracts over 2,000 irrigable acres)
must prepare a Plan that contains the
following information:
1. Description of the District;
2. Inventory of Water Resources;
3. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
for Agricultural Contractors;
4. BMPs for Urban Contractors;
5. Plan Implementation;
6. Exemption Process;
7. Regional Criteria; and
8. Five-Year Revisions.
Reclamation evaluates Plans based on
these criteria. A copy of these Plans will
be available for review at Reclamation’s
Mid-Pacific Regional Office, 2800
Cottage Way, MP–410, Sacramento,
California 95825. Our practice is to
make comments, including names and
home addresses of respondents,
available for public review. If you wish
to review a copy of these Plans, please
contact Ms. Anderson.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Public Disclosure
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Richard J. Woodley,
Regional Resources Manager, Mid-Pacific
Region, Bureau of Reclamation.
[FR Doc. 2015–03950 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332–90–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
ACTION:
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From China: Determination
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year reviews, the
United States International Trade
Commission (‘‘Commission’’)
determines, pursuant to section 751(c)
of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1675(c)), that revocation of the existing
antidumping and countervailing duty
orders on certain kitchen appliance
shelving and racks from China would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to a U.S.
industry producing refrigeration
shelving and a U.S. industry producing
oven racks within a reasonably
foreseeable time.
Background
The Commission instituted these
reviews on August 1, 2014 (79 FR
44862) and determined on November 4,
2014 that it would conduct expedited
reviews (79 FR 69525, November 21,
2014).
The Commission completed and filed
its determinations in these reviews on
February 24, 2015. The views of the
Commission are contained in USITC
Publication 4520 (February 2015),
entitled Certain Kitchen Appliance
Shelving and Racks from China:
Investigation Nos. 701–TA–458 and
731–TA–1154 (Review).
Issued: February 24, 2015.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–04114 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–924]
Certain Light Reflectors and
Components, Packaging, and Related
Advertising Thereof; Notice of
Commission Determination Not To
Review Initial Determinations Granting
Motions To Terminate the Investigation
as to the Remaining Respondents;
Termination of the Investigation in Its
Entirety
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
AGENCY:
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review: (1) An initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 17) issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) on January 22, 2015, granting a
motion to terminate the investigation as
to respondents Sinowell (Shanghai) Co.
Ltd. and Sinohydro Ltd. (collectively,
‘‘Sinowell’’), based on a settlement
agreement; and (2) an ID (Order No. 18)
issued by the ALJ on January 27, 2015,
granting a motion to terminate the
investigation as to the remaining
respondents based on withdrawal of the
amended complaint.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cathy Chen, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–2392. 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 August 12, 2014, based on a
complaint filed on June 20, 2014,
amended on July 11, 2014, and
supplemented on July 18, 2014, on
behalf of Sunlight Supply, Inc. of
Vancouver, Washington and IP
Holdings, LLC of Vancouver,
Washington (collectively, ‘‘Sunlight’’).
79 FR 47156 (Aug. 12, 2014). The
amended complaint alleged violations
of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the sale
for importation, importation, and sale
within the United States after
importation of certain light reflectors
and components, packaging, and related
advertising thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,641,367; D634,469;
D644,185; D545,485; and by reason of
infringement of U.S. Trademark
Registration Nos. 3,871,765; and
SUMMARY:
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–458 and 731–
TA–1154 (Review)]
10713
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10714
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices
3,262,059. The amended complaint also
alleges that an industry in the United
States exists as required by subsection
(a)(2) of section 337. The amended
complaint further alleges violations of
section 337 based upon the importation
into the United States, or in the sale of,
certain light reflectors and components,
packaging, and related advertising
thereof by reason of false advertising,
the threat or effect of which is to destroy
or substantially injure an industry in the
United States. The Commission’s notice
of investigation named numerous
respondents including Sinowell. See 79
FR 47156–57. The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations was named as a
party to the investigation. Id. at 47157.
On December 16, 2014, the
Commission determined not to review
an ID (Order No. 12) granting a motion
to terminate the investigation as to
respondents The Hydro Source II, Inc.;
Bizright, LLC; and Silversun, Inc., based
upon settlement agreements.
On December 16, 2014, Sunlight
moved to terminate the investigation as
to Sinowell based upon a settlement
agreement between Sunlight and
Sinowell. That same day, Sunlight also
moved to terminate the investigation as
to the remaining respondents Groco
Enterprises, LLC; Good Nature Garden
Supply; Aqua Serene, Inc.; Aurora
Innovations, Inc.; Big Daddy Garden
Supply, Inc.; Insun, LLC; Lumz’N
Blooms, Ltd. Corp; ParluxAmerica LLP;
and Zimbali Group, Inc., based on
withdrawal of the amended complaint
as to these respondents. Sunlight
asserted that there are no agreements,
written or oral, express or implied
between the parties concerning the
subject matter of this investigation,
other than the confidential settlement
agreement between Sunlight and
Sinowell. Sunlight also asserted that
granting the motions is in the public
interest and will conserve the resources
of the Commission. The Commission’s
Investigative Attorney filed responses in
support of the motions.
On January 22, 2015, the ALJ issued
an ID (Order No. 17), granting the
motion to terminate the investigation as
to Sinowell. The ALJ found that the
settlement agreement appears to resolve
the dispute between Sunlight and
Sinowell, and that granting the motion
would not adversely affect the public
interest factors. No petitions for review
were filed.
On January 27, 2015, the ALJ issued
an ID (Order No. 18), granting the
motion to terminate the investigation as
to the remaining respondents. The ALJ
found that no extraordinary
circumstances exist that would prevent
the requested termination of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
remaining respondents from the
investigation. The ALJ also found that
the parties have complied with the
requirements of Rule 210.21(a). No
petitions for review were filed.
The Commission has determined not
to review the two subject IDs.
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 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part
210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 23, 2015.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015–04089 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1110—NEW]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed eCollection
eComments Requested; Approval of
an Existing Collection in Use Without
an OMB Control Number; FBI
Expungement Form (FD–1114)
Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Department of Justice.
ACTION: 60-day notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), Criminal Justice Information
Services (CJIS) Division, 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.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until April
28, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional 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
Rachel K. Hurst, Management and
Program Analyst, FBI, CJIS, Biometric
Services Section, Customer Support
Unit, Module E–1, 1000 Custer Hollow
Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306
(facsimile: 304–625–5392).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; 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:
Approval of collection in use without an
OMB control number.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: FBI
Expungement Form.
(3) Agency form number: FD–1114.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: This form is utilized
by criminal justice and affiliated
judicial agencies to request appropriate
removal of criminal history information
from an individual’s record.
(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 152,430
respondents are authorized to complete
the form which would require
approximately 10 minutes.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: There are an estimated
89,591 total annual burden hours
associated with this collection.
If additional information is required
contact: Jerri Murray, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B,
Washington, DC 20530.
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10713-10714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04089]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-924]
Certain Light Reflectors and Components, Packaging, and Related
Advertising Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review
Initial Determinations Granting Motions To Terminate the Investigation
as to the Remaining Respondents; Termination of the Investigation in
Its Entirety
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: (1) An initial determination
(``ID'') (Order No. 17) issued by the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') on January 22, 2015, granting a motion to terminate the
investigation as to respondents Sinowell (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. and
Sinohydro Ltd. (collectively, ``Sinowell''), based on a settlement
agreement; and (2) an ID (Order No. 18) issued by the ALJ on January
27, 2015, granting a motion to terminate the investigation as to the
remaining respondents based on withdrawal of the amended complaint.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Chen, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. 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 August 12, 2014, based on a complaint filed on June 20, 2014,
amended on July 11, 2014, and supplemented on July 18, 2014, on behalf
of Sunlight Supply, Inc. of Vancouver, Washington and IP Holdings, LLC
of Vancouver, Washington (collectively, ``Sunlight''). 79 FR 47156
(Aug. 12, 2014). The amended complaint alleged violations of Section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the sale
for importation, importation, and sale within the United States after
importation of certain light reflectors and components, packaging, and
related advertising thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims
of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,641,367; D634,469; D644,185; D545,485; and by
reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3,871,765;
and
[[Page 10714]]
3,262,059. The amended complaint also alleges that an industry in the
United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The amended complaint further alleges violations of section 337 based
upon the importation into the United States, or in the sale of, certain
light reflectors and components, packaging, and related advertising
thereof by reason of false advertising, the threat or effect of which
is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.
The Commission's notice of investigation named numerous respondents
including Sinowell. See 79 FR 47156-57. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations was named as a party to the investigation. Id. at 47157.
On December 16, 2014, the Commission determined not to review an ID
(Order No. 12) granting a motion to terminate the investigation as to
respondents The Hydro Source II, Inc.; Bizright, LLC; and Silversun,
Inc., based upon settlement agreements.
On December 16, 2014, Sunlight moved to terminate the investigation
as to Sinowell based upon a settlement agreement between Sunlight and
Sinowell. That same day, Sunlight also moved to terminate the
investigation as to the remaining respondents Groco Enterprises, LLC;
Good Nature Garden Supply; Aqua Serene, Inc.; Aurora Innovations, Inc.;
Big Daddy Garden Supply, Inc.; Insun, LLC; Lumz'N Blooms, Ltd. Corp;
ParluxAmerica LLP; and Zimbali Group, Inc., based on withdrawal of the
amended complaint as to these respondents. Sunlight asserted that there
are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the
parties concerning the subject matter of this investigation, other than
the confidential settlement agreement between Sunlight and Sinowell.
Sunlight also asserted that granting the motions is in the public
interest and will conserve the resources of the Commission. The
Commission's Investigative Attorney filed responses in support of the
motions.
On January 22, 2015, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 17), granting
the motion to terminate the investigation as to Sinowell. The ALJ found
that the settlement agreement appears to resolve the dispute between
Sunlight and Sinowell, and that granting the motion would not adversely
affect the public interest factors. No petitions for review were filed.
On January 27, 2015, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 18), granting
the motion to terminate the investigation as to the remaining
respondents. The ALJ found that no extraordinary circumstances exist
that would prevent the requested termination of the remaining
respondents from the investigation. The ALJ also found that the parties
have complied with the requirements of Rule 210.21(a). No petitions for
review were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the two subject IDs.
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 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 23, 2015.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-04089 Filed 2-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
