Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Notices 60187

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 2, 2003, based on a complaint 

filed by Energizer Holdings, Inc. and 

Eveready Battery Company, Inc., both of 

St. Louis, Missouri. 68 FR 32771 (June 

2, 2003). The complaint, as 

supplemented, alleged violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in 

the importation into the United States, 

the sale for importation, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain zero-mercuryadded alkaline batteries, parts thereof, 

and products containing same by reason 

of infringement of claims 1–12 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,464,709 (‘‘the ‘709 patent’’). 

The complaint and notice of 

investigation named 26 respondents and 

were later amended to include an 

additional firm as a respondent. The 

investigation has been terminated as to 

claims 8–12 of the ‘709 patent. Several 

respondents have been terminated from 

the investigation for various reasons. 

On June 2, 2004, the ALJ issued his 

final ID finding a violation of section 

337. He also recommended the issuance 

of remedial orders. A number of the 

remaining respondents petitioned for 

review of the ID. Complainants and the 

Commission investigative attorney filed 

oppositions to those petitions. On July 

9, 2004, the Commission issued a notice 

that it had determined to review the 

ALJ’s final ID in its entirety. In that 

notice, the Commission requested 

written submissions on the issues on 

review (noting issues and questions it 

particularly sought briefing on), as well 

as on remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. Complainants, respondents, 

and the Commission investigative 

attorney filed written submissions. 

Having considered the record in this 

investigation, including the written 

submissions on the issues on review 

and on remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding, the Commission has 

determined to terminate this 

investigation with a finding of no 

violation of section 337. Specifically, 

the Commission has determined that the 

asserted claims are invalid for 

indefiniteness. The Commission has 

determined to take no position on the 

other issues raised in this investigation. 

Finally, the Commission has determined 

to deny as moot the May 21, 2004, 

motion of respondent Ningbo Baowang 

Battery Co. Ltd. to terminate the 

investigation as to it, as well as its 

motion to reopen the evidentiary record. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), 

and sections 210.41–.51 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.41–.51).

By order of the Commission.

Issued: October 1, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–22601 Filed 10–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Settlement 

Agreement Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

Notice is hereby given that on 

September 23, 2004, a proposed 

Settlement Agreement (the 

‘‘Agreement’’) in In re: Farmland 

Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 02–

50557, was lodged with the United 

States Bankruptcy Court for the Western 

District of Missouri. 

In this settlement the United States 

resolves the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s claim for cost recovery for 

costs to be incurred remediating 

environmental contamination at the 

Obee Road Superfund Site in 

Hutchinson, Kansas. Farmland 

Industries, Inc. has been identified as a 

responsible party under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’) in connection with this 

Site. and civil penalties under CERCLA, 

the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air 

Act against Farmland Industries, Inc. 

The Settlement Agreement provides that 

the United States will have an allowed 

general unsecured claim of $940,000, in 

settlement of the above-described claim. 

The United States previously has 

recovered from Farmland its past costs 

incurred at the Obee Road Site. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Settlement Agreement. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to In re: 

Farmland Industries, Inc., et al., Case 

No. 02–50557, Bankruptcy Court for 

Western District of Missouri, D.J. Ref. 

#90–5–1–1–06976/3. 

The Settlement Agreement may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney, 400 E. 9th Street, 

Kansas City, MO 64106, and at U.S. EPA 

Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, 

Kansas 66101. During the public 

comment period, the Settlement 

Agreement may also be examined on the 

following Justice Department Web site, 

http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement 

may also be obtained by mail from the 

Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC 20044–7611 or by faxing or emailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation 

number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a 

copy from the Consent Decree Library, 

please enclose a check in the amount of 

$1.00 (25 cents per page reproduction 

cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Catherine R. McCabe, 

Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division.

[FR Doc. 04–22525 Filed 10–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of the Proposed 

Consent Decree Between the United 

States, The State of Maryland, The 

Commonwealth of Virginia, Mirant MidAtlantic, LLC and Mirant Potomac 

River, LLC 

Notice is hereby given that on 

Monday, September 27, 2004, a 

proposed Consent decree (‘‘proposed 

Decree’’) in United States and State of 

Maryland v. Mirant Mid-Atlantic, LLC 

and Mirant Potomac River, LLC

(‘‘Mirant’’), Civil Action No. 

1:04CV1136, was lodged with the 

United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia. 

In this civil enforcement action under 

the federal Clean Air Act (‘‘Act’’), the 

United States alleges that in 2003, 

Mirant, an electric utility, failed to 

comply with a provision in the 

Operating Permit for the Potomac River 

Generating Station that limited that 

plant’s NOX emissions to 1,019 tons of 

NOX during the ozone season. The 

complaint seeks both injunctive relief 

and a civil penalty. 

The proposed Decree lodged with the 

Court addresses this violation at the 

Potomac river Generating Station 

(located in Alexandria, Virginia) by 

requiring relief at that plant, as well as 

at three other Mirant coal-fired electric 

generating facilities: the Chalk Point 

Generating Plant (in Prince George’s 

County, Maryland); the Morgantown 

Generating Plant (in Charles County, 

Maryland); and the Dickerson 

Generating Plant (in Montgomery 

County, Maryland).

60188 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Notices 

The proposed Decree requires the 

installation of NOX pollution control 

equipment at the Potomac River 

Generating Station and the Morgantown 

Generating Plant, over a period of 

several years. In addition, the proposed 

Decree imposes limitations on the NOX

emissions from all four plants that apply 

both annually and during the ozone 

season. 

The proposed Decree also requires 

Mirant to implement a series of 

environmental projects designed to 

reduce particulate matter emissions 

from the Potomac River Plant. They are 

described in the proposed Decree and 

are valued at about $1 million. In 

addition, Mirant also will pay a civil 

penalty of $250,000 to the United States, 

and a civil penalty of $250,000 to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Joining in the proposed Decree as coplaintiffs are the State of Maryland and 

the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the proposed Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, PO Box 7611, U.S. Department 

of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611, 

and should refer to United States v. 

Mirant Potomac River LLC, Mirant MidAtlantic LLC, D.J. Ref. 90–5–2–1–07829. 

The proposed Decree may be 

examined at the offices of the United 

States Attorney, Eastern District of 

Virginia, 2100 Jamieson Avenue, 

Alexandria, Virginia, and at the offices 

of U.S. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. 

During the public comment period, 

the proposed Decree may also be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site, http://

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html. A copy 

of the proposed Decree may also be 

obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 

request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation 

number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a 

copy from the Consent Decree Library, 

please enclose a check in the amount of 

$14.50 (25 cents per page reproduction 

cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Catherine R. McCabe, 

Deputy Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 04–22524 Filed 10–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Second 

Supplement to the Consent Decree 

Pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water 

Act 

In accordance with 28 CFR 50.7, 

notice is hereby given that a proposed 

Second Supplement to the Consent 

Decree in United States and State of 

New York, et al. v. City of New York, et 

al., Civil Action No. CV 97–2154 

(Gershon J.) (Gold, M.J.), was lodged 

with the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of New York on 

September 23, 2004. In this action, the 

United States and the State of New York 

sought a court order requiring the City 

of New York to come into compliance 

with the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 

U.S.C. 300f, et seq., and the Surface 

Water Treatment Rule, a National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulation, by 

installing filtration treatment for its 

Croton water supply system. 

On November 24, 1998, the Court 

entered a Consent Decree in this action 

which required the City, among other 

obligations, to select a site for, design, 

and construct the Croton filtration plant. 

The City selected a site for the plant at 

the Mosholu Golf Course in Van 

Cortlandt Park in the Bronx. However, 

on February 8, 2001, the New York State 

Court of Appeals held that the City 

could not construct the plant at the 

Mosholu Golf Course Site without first 

obtaining approval from the New York 

State Legislature. The City sought, but 

did not promptly obtain legislative 

approval to construct the plant at the 

Mosholu Golf Course Site. 

In view of the lack of legislative 

approval for the Mosholu Golf Course 

Site in 2001–2002, the parties to the 

Consent Decree negotiated in 2001 and 

the Court entered in 2002 a first 

Supplement to the Consent Decree 

(‘‘first Supplement’’), which required 

the City to select a new site and 

modified the deadlines for construction 

of the filtration plant. The City 

identified two alternative sites for 

construction of the filtration plant, a site 

in the Town of Mount Pleasant in 

Westchester County, denominated the 

Eastview Site, and a site adjacent to the 

Harlem River in Bronx County, 

denominated the Harlem River Site. The 

first Supplement to the Consent Decree 

required the City to conduct some initial 

study and design work relating to the 

Eastview Site and the Harlem River Site 

and to identify its preferred site in a 

draft environmental impact statement to 

be submitted on April 30, 2003. The 

City was to select one of these two sites 

or, if legislative approval for the 

Mosholu Golf Course Site was obtained 

by April 15, 2003 and other 

requirements were met, the City could 

instead select the Mosholu Golf Course 

Site. 

Legislative approval for the Mosholu 

Golf Course Site was not obtained by 

April 15, 2003. The City failed to select 

a preferred site under the requirements 

of the first Supplement by April 30, 

2003. However, on June 20, 2003, the 

State legislature passed a bill allowing 

use of the Mosholu Golf Course Site for 

the Croton filtration plant, which was 

signed into law on July 22, 2003. The 

State legislation also required that the 

City conduct a supplemental 

environmental impact statement prior to 

selecting the preferred filtration plant 

site. 

On June 30, 2004, the City completed 

a final supplemental environmental 

impact statement and selected the 

Mosholu Golf Course Site as its 

preferred site for the Croton filtration 

plant. The City also selected the 

Eastview Site as its backup site for the 

Croton filtration plant.

As a result of the City’s failure to 

comply with the April 30, 2003 

deadline for selecting its preferred site 

and the later enactment of the State 

legislation, the Parties have negotiated a 

further modification of the Consent 

Decree, which is set forth in the Second 

Supplement to the Consent Decree 

(‘‘Second Supplement’’). The Second 

Supplement supercedes the first 

Supplement. 

The Second Supplement sets forth a 

modified schedule for the City to 

construct filtration facilities. Consistent 

with the terms of the Second 

Supplement, the City selected its 

preferred and backup sites. The Second 

Supplement requires the City to 

complete construction of the Croton 

filtration plant at is preferred site, the 

Mosholu Golf Course Site, by May 1, 

2011, and commence full operation of 

the Croton filtration plant by October 

31, 2011. The Second Supplement also 

provides that, if the United States, State, 

or the City determines during the course 

of implementation of the Second 

Supplement that the City cannot 

complete the plant at the preferred site 

within the schedule set forth in the 

Second Supplement or within a 

reasonable time period agreed to by the 

parties, the City shall construct the 

plant at its backup site, the Eastview 

Site. In addition, the Second 

Supplement provides for continued 

implementation of interim measures 

and for payment by the City of 

stipulated penalties in the amount of 

$180,000 for its failure to select a 

preferred site timely in accordance with