77776 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Notices 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)).

2The Commission further determines that critical 

circumstances do not exist with respect to those 

imports of the subject merchandise from China that 

were subject to the affirmative critical 

circumstances determination by the Department of 

Commerce.

Advisory Commission, 109 West Main 

Street, Somerset, PA 15501.

Dated: November 30, 2004. 

Joanne M. Hanley, 

Superintendent, Flight 93 National Memorial.

[FR Doc. 04–28289 Filed 12–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–WH–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 701–TA–437 and 731–

TA–1060 and 1061 (Final)] 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From 

China and India 

Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 

1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in 

the United States is materially injured 

by reason of imports from China and 

India of carbazole violet pigment 23, 

provided for in subheading 3204.17.90 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States, that have been found 

by the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) to be subsidized by the 

Government of India and to be sold in 

the United States at less than fair value 

(LTFV).2

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

investigations effective November 21, 

2003, following receipt of a petition 

filed with the Commission and 

Commerce by Nation Ford Chemical 

Co., Fort Mill, SC, and Sun Chemical 

Corp., Cincinnati, OH. The final phase 

of these investigations was scheduled by 

the Commission following notification 

of preliminary determinations by 

Commerce that imports of carbazole 

violet pigment 23 from India were being 

subsidized within the meaning of 

section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b(b)) and that imports of carbazole 

violet pigment 23 from China and India 

were being sold at LTFV within the 

meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the 

scheduling of the final phase of the 

Commission’s investigations and of a 

public hearing to be held in connection 

therewith was given by posting copies 

of the notice in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC, and by 

publishing the notice in the Federal 

Register of July 23, 2004 (69 FR 44059). 

The hearing was held in Washington, 

DC, on November 10, 2004, and all 

persons who requested the opportunity 

were permitted to appear in person or 

by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these investigations to 

the Secretary of Commerce on December 

22, 2004. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 

3744 (December 2004), entitled 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from China 

and India: Investigations Nos. 701–TA–

437 and 731–TA–1060 and 1061 (Final).

By order of the Commission.

Issued: December 21, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–28340 Filed 12–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–406 

(Consolidated Advisory Opinion and 

Enforcement Proceedings)] 

In the Matter of Certain Lens-Fitted 

Film Packages; Order 

On October 7, 2004, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

issued two decisions in appeals 

stemming from the above-captioned 

proceedings, VastFame Camera, Ltd., et 

al. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Com’n, 386 F.3d 

1108 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (‘‘VastFame’’) and 

Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., et al. v. U.S. 

Int’l Trade Com’n, 386 F.3d 1095 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004) (‘‘Fuji’’). The mandates issued 

in these cases on November 29, 2004. In 

VastFame, the Court reversed the 

Commission’s decision to refuse to 

allow an importer who had not been a 

respondent in the original investigation 

to raise the defense of patent invalidity 

in the Commission’s enforcement 

proceedings, vacated the enforcement 

decision, and remanded the case for 

proceedings consistent with its Opinion. 

In Fuji, the Court affirmed the majority 

of the Commission’s determinations at 

issue, but vacated and remanded the 

Commission’s infringement decision as 

to one asserted claim for 

redetermination of the infringement 

issue using a claim construction 

supplied by the Court. 

It is hereby ordered that: 

1. This investigation be remanded to 

Administrative Law Judge Paul J. 

Luckern in order that he may conduct 

such further proceedings as may be 

necessary to carry out the mandates of 

the Court and conclude the proceedings. 

2. The presiding administrative law 

judge shall issue an initial 

determination in which he shall 

determine: 

a. Whether claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 

4,884,087 is invalid; 

b. Whether any of the respondents’

accused disposable cameras imported 

into or sold in the United States infringe 

claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 4,972,649 

under the Federal Circuit’s claim 

construction; and 

c. Whether there are, in light of the 

determinations made in accordance 

with paragraph b. above, any further 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930. 

3. The presiding administrative law 

judge may, in his discretion, reopen the 

evidentiary record to the extent 

necessary to resolve any new factual 

questions presented by the Court’s 

opinion. His ID will be processed by the 

Commission in accordance with 

Commission Rules 210.42(h)(2) and 

210.43–210.45, 19 CFR 210.42(h)(2) and 

210.43–210.45. 

4. In the event that the presiding 

administrative law judge determines 

that there have been additional 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, he shall issue a 

recommended determination on 

whether any further enforcement 

measures are necessary.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: December 21, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–28339 Filed 12–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–500] 

In the Matter of Certain Purple 

Protective Gloves; Notice of Issuance 

of General Exclusion Order and 

Termination of the Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to issue a 

general exclusion order in the abovecaptioned investigation and has 

terminated the investigation.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2004 / Notices 77777

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Diehl, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–

205–3095. Copies of 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 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 

the matter can be obtained by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

trademark-based section 337 

investigation was instituted by the 

Commission based on a complaint filed 

by Kimberly-Clark Corporation of Irving, 

Texas and Safeskin Corporation of 

Roswell, Georgia (collectively ‘‘K-C/

Safeskin’’). 68 FR 66491 (Nov. 26, 2003). 

K-C/Safeskin alleged violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in 

the importation and sale of certain 

purple protective gloves by reason of 

infringement of U.S. Registered 

Trademark Nos. 2,596,539, 2,533,260, 

and 2,593,382. 

Six of the seven respondents named 

in the complaint entered into settlement 

agreements with K-C/Safeskin. On May 

24, 2004, the administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) issued an initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 15) terminating the 

investigation as to Latexx Partners 

Berhad and Medtexx Partners on the 

basis of a confidential settlement 

agreement. On June 1, 2004, the ALJ 

issued another ID (Order No. 16), 

terminating the investigation as to The 

Delta Group; Delta Hospital Supply, 

Inc.; Delta Medical Systems, Inc.; and 

Delta Medical Supply Group, Inc. on the 

basis of a settlement agreement and a 

consent order. The Commission 

determined not to review the IDs on 

June 22, 2004. 

The seventh respondent—Dash 

Medical Gloves, Inc. (‘‘Dash’’)—failed to 

file a timely response to the complaint 

and notice of investigation. Dash filed a 

motion for termination of the 

investigation as to it by entry of a 

consent order. Subsequently, in 

response to an order to show cause why 

it should not be held in default, Dash 

withdrew its request for termination by 

entry of consent and indicated that it 

‘‘will not oppose entry of a Default in 

this matter.’’ On May 24, 2004, the ALJ 

issued an ID (Order No. 14) finding 

Dash in default pursuant to Commission 

rule 210.16(a)(1). The Commission 

determined not to review the ID on June 

22, 2004. 

On September 23, 2004, the ALJ 

issued an ID (Order No. 17) finding 

‘‘substantial, reliable, and probative 

evidence’’ of a violation of section 337 

by reason of Dash’s importation and sale 

of the accused gloves and the existence 

of a domestic industry. No party 

petitioned for review of the ID. The ALJ 

recommended the issuance of a general 

exclusion order, and that the bond 

permitting temporary importation 

during the Presidential review period be 

set at 100 percent of the value of the 

infringing imported product. On 

October 19, 2004, the Commission 

determined not to review this ID, and 

issued a notice seeking comments on 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. K-C/Safeskin and the 

Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) supported the recommendations 

of the ALJ in briefs filed on November 

12, 2004. The IA filed a reply on 

November 19, 2004. 

Having examined the relevant 

portions of the record in this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s 

recommended determination, and the 

written submissions on remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding, the 

Commission determined to issue a 

general exclusion order prohibiting 

unlicensed entry for consumption of 

purple protective gloves that infringe 

U.S. Registered Trademarks Nos. 

2,596,539, 2,533,260, or 2,593,382. The 

Commission also determined that the 

public interest factors enumerated in 

section 337(d) do not preclude the 

issuance of the aforementioned remedial 

order and that the bond during the 

Presidential review period shall be 100 

percent of the entered value of the 

articles in question. (The Commission’s 

order was delivered to the President on 

the day of its issuance.) 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2)), and 

sections 210.41 and 210.50 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, (19 CFR 210.41 and 210.50).

By order of the Commission.

Issued: December 22, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–28337 Filed 12–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–517] 

In the Matter of Certain Shirts With 

Pucker-Free Seams and Methods of 

Producing Same—Notice of Decision 

Not To Review an Initial Determination 

Partially Terminating the Investigation 

on the Basis of Withdrawal of Certain 

Allegations in the Complaint

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) in the above-captioned 

investigation partially terminating the 

investigation on the basis of withdrawal 

of certain allegations in the complaint.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrea Casson, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–

205–3104. Copies of 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. 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 

the matter can be obtained by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on August 3, 2004, based on a complaint 

filed by TAL Apparel Limited, 

TALTECH Limited, and The Apparel 

Group Limited (collectively ‘‘TAL.’’) 69 

FR 47857 (August 6, 2004.) The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 337 U.S.C. 

1337, in the importation into the United 

States, sale for importation, and/or sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain shirts with 

pucker-free seams that infringe claims 1, 

4, 20 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,568,779 (the ‘779 patent); claims 1, 11, 

19 and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 5,590,615 

(the ‘615 patent); claims 1, 3, 13 and 16