Certain Laser Abraded Denim Garments; Commission Determination To Review Order No. 43, and on Review Vacating That Order as Moot; Termination of the Investigation, 22632-22633 [2016-08845]

Download as PDF 22632 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Notices provide diverse visitor experiences on the islands. Wilderness designation is proposed for 1,298 acres on Anacapa, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa Islands, and additionally on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands 65,278 acres are identified as potential wilderness. For a park that includes five remote islands spanning 2,228 square miles of land and sea, the new Channel Islands National Park GMP defines a clear direction for resource preservation and visitor experience over the next 20 to 40 years. The GMP provides a framework for proactive decision making, which will allow park managers to effectively address future opportunities and problems. The approved GMP will also serve as the basis for future detailed management documents, such as fiveyear strategic plans and project implementation plans. Dated: September 14, 2015. Martha J. Lee, Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region. Editorial Note: This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on April 12, 2016. [FR Doc. 2016–08841 Filed 4–15–16; 8:45 am] Effective January 6, 2016, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of this review (81 FR 1643, January 13, 2016). Subsequently, counsel for the domestic interested parties filed a request to appear at the hearing and for consideration of cancellation of the hearing. Counsel indicated a willingness to submit written testimony and responses to any Commission questions in lieu of an actual hearing. No other party has entered an appearance in this review. Consequently, the public hearing in connection with this review, scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 28, 2016, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, is cancelled. Parties to this review should respond to any written questions posed by the Commission in their posthearing briefs, which are due to be filed on May 5, 2016. For further information concerning this review see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. BILLING CODE 4312–FF–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–1070B (Second Review)] Certain Tissue Paper Products From China; Cancellation of Hearing for Full Five-Year Review By order of the Commission. Issued: April 12, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2016–08797 Filed 4–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Effective Date: April 12, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Enck ((202) 205–3363), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Certain Laser Abraded Denim Garments; Commission Determination To Review Order No. 43, and on Review Vacating That Order as Moot; Termination of the Investigation AGENCY: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES DATES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 Apr 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 [Investigation No. 337–TA–930] U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has determined to review Order No. 43 issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’). On review, the Commission has determined to vacate Order No. 43 because the law firm disqualification at issue has become moot. This investigation is terminated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the General SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–5468. 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 (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 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. The Commission instituted this investigation on September 23, 2014, based on a complaint filed by RevoLaze, LLC and TechnoLines, LLC, both of Westlake, Ohio (collectively, ‘‘RevoLaze’’). 79 Fed Reg. 56828 (Sept. 23, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain laser abraded denim garments. The complaint alleged the infringement of seventy-one claims of six United States patents. The notice of institution named twenty respondents, including The Gap, Inc. of San Francisco, California (‘‘Gap’’), who, one-by-one were terminated from the investigation. On November 18, 2015, the Commission terminated the last remaining respondents from the investigation on the basis of settlement and withdrawal of the complaint. 80 FR Reg. 73209, 73210 (Nov. 24, 2015). However, previously in the investigation, the then-presiding ALJ disqualified complainants’ counsel Dentons US LLP (‘‘Dentons US’’) in an order that was not an initial determination (‘‘ID’’). Order No. 43 (May 7, 2015). Subsequently, the ALJ granted (as an ID) Dentons US’s motion to intervene regarding its disqualification, Order No. 82 (Aug. 7, 2013), but denied (as an order) its motion for reconsideration of Order No. 43 as well as its request for leave to seek interlocutory review before the Commission, Order No. 83 (Aug. 7, 2015); see 19 CFR 210.24 (interlocutory review by the Commission). The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM 18APN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Notices Commission determined not to review Order No. 82. Notice (Aug. 26, 2015). On October 27, 2015, in response to the issuance of an ID (Order No. 106), which terminated the investigation before the ALJ, Dentons US filed a petition for Commission review of Order Nos. 43 and 83. See 19 CFR 210.24 (rulings by the ALJ ‘‘on motions may not be appealed to the Commission prior to the administrative law judge’s issuance of an initial determination’’). On November 3, 2015, and November 9, 2015, the Office of Unfair Import Investigations and Gap, respectively, opposed Dentons’ petition. The Commission has determined to review Order No. 43, and, on review, has determined to vacate the disqualification decision as moot. In view of the final disposition of the investigation as to all respondents, the issue of Dentons US’s disqualification has no practical effect on this investigation. Although the Commission has the discretion to address issues that have become moot, it has determined not to do so here. The disqualification in this investigation turns on whether Dentons US and Dentons Canada LLP as members of Salans FMC Denton Group (‘‘Dentons Verein’’) should be treated as a single law firm under the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct (‘‘Model Rules’’) in this investigation. Answering that question would require further proceedings, and potentially additional factfinding. In particular, Comment 2 to Model Rule 1.0 sets forth several factors to consider in determining whether a group of lawyers constitute a law firm, including (1) how the lawyers present themselves to the public, (2) whether the lawyers conduct themselves as a law firm, (3) the terms of any formal agreement among the lawyers, and (4) whether the lawyers have mutual access to client information. Here, the record lacks sufficient evidence on these factors, especially as to the third factor, because the Dentons Verein organizational agreements have not been made part of the record of the investigation. The Commission has decided that the added delay, burdens, and expenses that would be incurred by the parties and the Commission in resolving these issues are unjustified given the termination of the investigation as to all respondents. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to review and vacate Order No. 43, without deciding whether the disqualification in this investigation was appropriate. The reasoning in support of the Commission’s decision VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 Apr 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 will be set forth more fully in a forthcoming opinion. In light of its determination above, the Commission has determined not to review Order No. 83, which denied as untimely a motion of Dentons US and Revolaze for reconsideration of Order No. 43 or for interlocutory review by the Commission. The Commission notes that in April 2016, it received several submissions from RevoLaze and Dentons US after the deadlines for submissions set forth in 19 CFR 210.43 had passed. The Commission rejects these submissions as untimely and procedurally improper, and did not consider them in making its determination. 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 Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). Issued: April 12, 2016. By order of the Commission. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2016–08845 Filed 4–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 22633 Nederland, Heerlen, THE NETHERLANDS; D.E. Solution sprl, Brussels, BELGIUM; Poway Unified School District, Poway, CA; American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC; University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT; and Gutenberg Technology, Cambridge, MA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture. No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMS Global intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On April 7, 2000, IMS Global filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283). The last notification was filed with the Department on December 29, 2015. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3820). Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. 2016–08803 Filed 4–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. Antitrust Division Notice is hereby given that, on March 18, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. (‘‘IMS Global’’) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Baltimore County Public Schools, Baltimore, MD; Broward Community College, Fort Lauderdale, FL; explorance, Montreal, Quebec, CANADA; its learning, Bergen, NORWAY; Katy Independent School District, Katy, TX; and Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, have been added as parties to this venture. Also, EUN Partnership AISBL, Brussels, BELGIUM; Open Universiteit PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. Notice is hereby given that, on March 23, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Arista Networks, Santa Clara, CA; Cisco International Limited, Feltham, UNITED KINGDOM; Coveloz Technologies, Inc., Kanata, CANADA; Masstech Innovations, Markham, Ontario, CANADA; Iain Collins (individual member), London, UNITED KINGDOM; Gabor Forgacs (individual member), Budapest, HUNGARY; Laurance Hughes E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM 18APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22632-22633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08845]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-930]


Certain Laser Abraded Denim Garments; Commission Determination To 
Review Order No. 43, and on Review Vacating That Order as Moot; 
Termination of the Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (``Commission'') has determined to review Order No. 43 
issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ''). On review, 
the Commission has determined to vacate Order No. 43 because the law 
firm disqualification at issue has become moot. This investigation is 
terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. 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 (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://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 September 23, 2014, based on a complaint filed by RevoLaze, LLC and 
TechnoLines, LLC, both of Westlake, Ohio (collectively, ``RevoLaze''). 
79 Fed Reg. 56828 (Sept. 23, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by 
reason of the importation into the United States, the sale for 
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of 
certain laser abraded denim garments. The complaint alleged the 
infringement of seventy-one claims of six United States patents. The 
notice of institution named twenty respondents, including The Gap, Inc. 
of San Francisco, California (``Gap''), who, one-by-one were terminated 
from the investigation. On November 18, 2015, the Commission terminated 
the last remaining respondents from the investigation on the basis of 
settlement and withdrawal of the complaint. 80 FR Reg. 73209, 73210 
(Nov. 24, 2015).
    However, previously in the investigation, the then-presiding ALJ 
disqualified complainants' counsel Dentons US LLP (``Dentons US'') in 
an order that was not an initial determination (``ID''). Order No. 43 
(May 7, 2015). Subsequently, the ALJ granted (as an ID) Dentons US's 
motion to intervene regarding its disqualification, Order No. 82 (Aug. 
7, 2013), but denied (as an order) its motion for reconsideration of 
Order No. 43 as well as its request for leave to seek interlocutory 
review before the Commission, Order No. 83 (Aug. 7, 2015); see 19 CFR 
210.24 (interlocutory review by the Commission). The

[[Page 22633]]

Commission determined not to review Order No. 82. Notice (Aug. 26, 
2015).
    On October 27, 2015, in response to the issuance of an ID (Order 
No. 106), which terminated the investigation before the ALJ, Dentons US 
filed a petition for Commission review of Order Nos. 43 and 83. See 19 
CFR 210.24 (rulings by the ALJ ``on motions may not be appealed to the 
Commission prior to the administrative law judge's issuance of an 
initial determination''). On November 3, 2015, and November 9, 2015, 
the Office of Unfair Import Investigations and Gap, respectively, 
opposed Dentons' petition.
    The Commission has determined to review Order No. 43, and, on 
review, has determined to vacate the disqualification decision as moot. 
In view of the final disposition of the investigation as to all 
respondents, the issue of Dentons US's disqualification has no 
practical effect on this investigation.
    Although the Commission has the discretion to address issues that 
have become moot, it has determined not to do so here. The 
disqualification in this investigation turns on whether Dentons US and 
Dentons Canada LLP as members of Salans FMC Denton Group (``Dentons 
Verein'') should be treated as a single law firm under the American Bar 
Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct (``Model Rules'') in 
this investigation. Answering that question would require further 
proceedings, and potentially additional factfinding. In particular, 
Comment 2 to Model Rule 1.0 sets forth several factors to consider in 
determining whether a group of lawyers constitute a law firm, including 
(1) how the lawyers present themselves to the public, (2) whether the 
lawyers conduct themselves as a law firm, (3) the terms of any formal 
agreement among the lawyers, and (4) whether the lawyers have mutual 
access to client information. Here, the record lacks sufficient 
evidence on these factors, especially as to the third factor, because 
the Dentons Verein organizational agreements have not been made part of 
the record of the investigation. The Commission has decided that the 
added delay, burdens, and expenses that would be incurred by the 
parties and the Commission in resolving these issues are unjustified 
given the termination of the investigation as to all respondents.
    Accordingly, the Commission has determined to review and vacate 
Order No. 43, without deciding whether the disqualification in this 
investigation was appropriate. The reasoning in support of the 
Commission's decision will be set forth more fully in a forthcoming 
opinion.
    In light of its determination above, the Commission has determined 
not to review Order No. 83, which denied as untimely a motion of 
Dentons US and Revolaze for reconsideration of Order No. 43 or for 
interlocutory review by the Commission.
    The Commission notes that in April 2016, it received several 
submissions from RevoLaze and Dentons US after the deadlines for 
submissions set forth in 19 CFR 210.43 had passed. The Commission 
rejects these submissions as untimely and procedurally improper, and 
did not consider them in making its determination.
    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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
part 210).

     Issued: April 12, 2016.

    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-08845 Filed 4-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P