60186 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Notices 

1,497,472, and U.S. Supplemental 

Register No. 1,903908, and infringement 

of the complainant’s trade dress. 

Subsequently, seven more firms were 

added as respondents based on two 

separate motions filed by complainant 

Auto Meter. The investigation was 

terminated as to nine respondents on 

the basis of consent orders. Six 

respondents were found to be in default. 

On July 2, 2004, Auto Meter and 

respondent Longacre Industries, Inc. 

(‘‘Longacre ’’) filed a joint motion to 

terminate based on a settlement 

agreement between Auto Meter and 

Longacre and a consent order 

stipulation with a proposed consent 

order. 

On September 1, 2004, the ALJ issued 

an ID (Order No. 37) terminating the 

investigation as to respondent Longacre 

on the basis of a settlement agreement 

and consent order. The Commission 

investigative attorneys filed a response 

in support of the joint motion. No 

petitions for review of the ID were filed. 

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 210.42 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42).

By order of the Commission.

Issued: September 27, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–22602 Filed 10–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–494] 

In the Matter of Certain Automotive 

Measuring Devices, Products 

Containing Same, and Bezels For Such 

Devices; Notice of Commission 

Decision Not To Review An Initial 

Determination Terminating The 

Investigation As To Respondent 

Longacre Industries, Inc. On The Basis 

of A Settlement Agreement And 

Consent Order; Issuance Of The 

Consent Order; Republication

Editorial Note: FR Doc. 04–22033 did not 

publish in the issue of Friday, October 1, 

2004. It is being published in its entirety in 

the issue of October 7, 2004.

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

issued by the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) terminating the 

above-captioned investigation as to 

respondent Longacre Industries, Inc. on 

the basis of a consent order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Timothy P. Monaghan, Esq., Office of 

the General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–

205–3152. Copies of the public version 

of the ID and all nonconfidential 

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. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on June 20, 2003, based on a complaint 

filed by Auto Meter Products, Inc. 

(‘‘Auto Meter’’) of Sycamore, Illinois. 68 

FR 37023. The complaint alleged 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 in the importation and sale 

of certain automotive measuring 

devices, products containing same, and 

bezels for such devices, by reason of 

infringement of U.S. Registered 

Trademark Nos. 1,732,643 and 

1,497,472, and U.S. Supplemental 

Register No. 1,903,908, and 

infringement of the complainant’s trade 

dress. Subsequently, seven more firms 

were added as respondents based on 

two separate motions filed by 

complainant Auto Meter. The 

investigation was terminated as to nine 

respondents on the basis of consent 

orders. Six respondents were found to 

be in default. 

On July 2, 2004, Auto Meter and 

respondent Longacre Industries, Inc. 

(‘‘Longacre’’) filed a joint motion to 

terminate based on a settlement 

agreement between Auto Meter and 

Longacre and a consent order 

stipulation with a proposed consent 

order. 

On September 1, 2004, the ALJ issued 

an ID (Order No. 37) terminating the 

investigation as to respondent Longacre 

on the basis of a settlement agreement 

and consent order. The Commission 

investigative attorneys filed a response 

in support of the joint motion. No 

petitions for review of the ID were filed. 

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 210.42 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42).

Issued: September 27, 2004. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–22033 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am]

Editorial Note: FR Doc. 04–22033 did not 

publish in the issue of Friday, October 1, 

2004. It is being published in its entirety in 

the issue of October 7, 2004.

[FR Doc. R4–22033 Filed 10–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–493] 

In the Matter of Certain Zero-MercuryAdded Alkaline Batteries, Parts 

Thereof, and Products Containing 

Same; Notice of Commission Decision 

to Terminate Investigation with a 

Finding of No Violation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to 

terminate the above-captioned 

investigation with a finding of no 

violation of section 337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Herrington, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3090. Copies of the ALJ’s ID and all 

other nonconfidential 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–ON–LINE) at http://

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

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).