Sulfanilic Acid From China and India; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews, 92853-92854 [2016-30534]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices trademark prosecution and maintenance in the domestic industry analysis. As recognized in Certain Video Game Systems and Controllers, patent prosecution activities rarely qualify as investments under section 337(a)(3)(C). See Certain Video Game Systems and Controllers, Inv. No. 337–TA–743, Comm’n Op., 2011 WL 1523774, *5 (Apr. 14, 2011). Rather, such activities are typically a step towards patent ownership and are insufficient to constitute exploitation of the patent under section 337(a)(3)(C). See id.; 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). Complainant made no showing that its patent and trademark prosecution and maintenance expenses are related to engineering, research and development, or licensing, or that such expenses otherwise qualify under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID. In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (Dec. 1994) (Comm’n Op.). If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission’s action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered. Written Submissions: Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Complainant and the Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainant is also requested to state the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported and the expiration date of the ’070 patent. The Complainant is also requested to supply the names of all known importers of the products at issue in this investigation. Written submissions must be filed no later than close of business on January 4, 2017. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on January 11, 2017. Such submissions should address the ALJ’s recommended determinations on remedy and bonding which were made in Order No. 11. No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (8) true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337–TA–988’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202–205– 2000). Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 92853 Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,1 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. 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). By order of the Commission. Issued: December 14, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2016–30580 Filed 12–19–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–318 and 731– TA–538 and 561 (Fourth Review)] Sulfanilic Acid From China and India; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on sulfanilic acid from India and antidumping orders on sulfanilic acid from China and India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of SUMMARY: 1 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM 20DEN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 92854 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. DATES: Effective Date: December 5, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Jones (202–205–3358), 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 (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.— On December 5, 2016, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (81 FR 60386, September 1, 2016) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate. The Commission also determined that the respondent interested party group response with respect to the order on sulfanilic acid from China was adequate but that the respondent interested party group response with respect to the orders on sulfanilic acid from India was inadequate. However, on November 18, 2016, the sole participating respondent interested party, in the review on sulfanilic acid from China (Archroma), withdrew its position and statements that advocated for revocation of the order. The Commission therefore determined that it would not be appropriate to conduct a full review of the order concerning China. The Commission did not find any circumstances that warranted conducting full reviews with respect to the orders concerning India.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)). For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on December 15, 2016, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determinations the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before December 22, 2016 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by December 22, 2016. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce’s final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce’s results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules with respect to filing were revised effective July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission’s Web site at https:// edis.usitc.gov. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Determinations.—The Commission has determined these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by 1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s Web site. 2 The Commission has found the responses submitted by Nation Ford Chemical Co. and Archroma U.S., Inc. to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). Authority: These reviews are 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. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 14, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2016–30534 Filed 12–19–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act On December 12, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in the lawsuit entitled United States and State of Indiana v. the City of Gary, Indiana, and Gary Sanitary District, Civil Action No. 2:16–cv–512 (N.D. Ind.). The United States and the State filed a complaint under the Clean Water Act, alleging violations of the Gary Sanitary District’s wastewater discharge permit and duty to respond to an information request issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Settling Defendants are the Gary Sanitary District and the City of Gary. The proposed consent decree requires the Settling Defendants to: (1) Develop and implement a control plan addressing discharges from the Gary Sanitary District’s combined sewer overflow outfalls into the local water bodies; (2) implement additional operational changes focused on improving the wastewater treatment system’s efficiency; (3) repay an outstanding loan extended to the City by the District; (4) pay a civil penalty of $75,000; (5) perform a supplemental environmental project costing $175,000; and (6) provide schedules for the remaining remediation of the Ralston Street Lagoon and the remediation of sediment in the Grand Calumet River, which are outstanding Clean Water Act and Toxic Substances Control Act requirements from a consent decree entered into by the Parties in 2003 in Civil Action No. 2:78–cv–29 and 86–540 (N.D. Ind.). The settlement would resolve the Settling Defendants’ civil liability for the violations alleged in the complaint that has been filed in the same action also on December 12, 2016. The United States and Indiana reached E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM 20DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92853-92854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30534]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-318 and 731-TA-538 and 561 (Fourth Review)]


Sulfanilic Acid From China and India; Scheduling of Expedited 
Five-Year Reviews

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of 
expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') to 
determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on 
sulfanilic acid from India and antidumping orders on sulfanilic acid 
from China and India would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of

[[Page 92854]]

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

DATES: Effective Date: December 5, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Jones (202-205-3358), Office 
of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired 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 (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these 
reviews may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at 
https://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background.-- On December 5, 2016, the Commission determined that 
the domestic interested party group response to its notice of 
institution (81 FR 60386, September 1, 2016) of the subject five-year 
reviews was adequate. The Commission also determined that the 
respondent interested party group response with respect to the order on 
sulfanilic acid from China was adequate but that the respondent 
interested party group response with respect to the orders on 
sulfanilic acid from India was inadequate. However, on November 18, 
2016, the sole participating respondent interested party, in the review 
on sulfanilic acid from China (Archroma), withdrew its position and 
statements that advocated for revocation of the order. The Commission 
therefore determined that it would not be appropriate to conduct a full 
review of the order concerning China. The Commission did not find any 
circumstances that warranted conducting full reviews with respect to 
the orders concerning India.\1\ Accordingly, the Commission determined 
that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's 
statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements 
will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 
Commission's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and 
rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), 
and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
    Staff report.--A staff report containing information concerning the 
subject matter of the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on 
December 15, 2016, and made available to persons on the Administrative 
Protective Order service list for these reviews. A public version will 
be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 
Commission's rules.
    Written submissions.--As provided in section 207.62(d) of the 
Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews 
and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of 
institution,\2\ and any party other than an interested party to the 
reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what 
determinations the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are 
due on or before December 22, 2016 and may not contain new factual 
information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year 
reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement 
(which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the 
reviews by December 22, 2016. However, should the Department of 
Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results 
of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new 
factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days 
after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business 
proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements 
of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The 
Commission's rules with respect to filing were revised effective July 
25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission 
Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at 
https://edis.usitc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has found the responses submitted by Nation 
Ford Chemical Co. and Archroma U.S., Inc. to be individually 
adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be 
accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each 
document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other 
parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI 
service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The 
Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate 
of service.
    Determinations.--The Commission has determined these reviews are 
extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise 
its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 
19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

    Authority: These reviews are 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.

    By order of the Commission.

     Issued: December 14, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-30534 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P